New entries Wednesday &
Sunday evenings
(& sometimes in between)
- Contribute to this online
public conversation -
|
|
1 - Global warming
2 - Dependence on
foreign energy
3 - Trade deficit
4 - Pollution from non-
renewable fuels
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's possible to live on less energy and there are even advantages.
When we (in the U.S.) start to pay the external costs of our energy use at the time we use it......we'll have the incentive needed to conserve energy. The best way to move in this direction is a phased-in, federal tax shift from income to non-renewable energy. An added benefit will be the economic stimulus this shift will provide for the renewable energy industry. Not a new idea, but and idea whose time has come.
Here's an article on The Huffington Post on living on less energy..... |
|
|
|
|
|
A valiant, worldwide effort to reach agreement on the need to reduce atmospheric CO2 concentration below 350 ppm - www.350.org. Per Bill McKibben on Truthout.org, late last year we were at 383 ppm.
Once at the 350.org site, click on "About 350" to get the details. Excerpts:
"350 is the red line for human beings, the most important number on the planet. The most recent science tells us that unless we can reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to 350 parts per million,..... |
|
|
|
|
|
The sooner we take significant action to reduce greenhouse gases, increase energy conservation and stimulate the renewable energy industry the better. A phased-in, federal tax shift from income to non-renewable energy is the best action we can take.
From the Los Angeles Times a couple of weeks ago - Climate change likely to trigger global destabilization, report says Excerpts:
"Global warming is likely to have a series of destabilizing effects around the world, causing humanitarian crises as well as surges in ethnic violence and illegal immigration, according to an assessment released Wednesday by U.S. intelligence agencies.
Overall,..... |
|
|
|
|
|
Widening recognition of the ethanol/food price crisis connection will hopefully lead to an end of subsidies and quotas for ethanol. There can be debate about the size of current impact, but there is no question that it is immoral to be in our current position and increase U.S. ethanol production quotas (which is exactly what we've done).
From the BBC News:....... ... |
|
|
|
|
|
From FRONTLINE: a 16 minute video - Asia and Africa: Living on the Edge
Excerpts:
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that 80 percent of all Himalayan glacier ice will be gone by 2035.
....glaciers are the world's natural water towers.'They kind of store water in the wet season and they disperse it during the dry season. And they do that for free,'
Half of the global population, Smith reports....." |
|
|
|
|
|
Sen. John McCain said a couple of weeks ago that we should build 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030. We have 104 now. Nuclear power is not the answer to our energy and environmental problems. In an AP article in the San Francisco Chronicle on McCain's announcement, there were only two references to what we'd do with nuclear waste:..... |
|
|
|
|
|
Oil is of course a finite resource. What are we doing to prepare for it's depletion? Very little. The sooner we act, the smaller the consequences.
Some day we'll thank OPEC for not completely "opening up the spigots." This would lead to an even bigger economic crash some day. The economic discomfort we're feeling now will
benefit us in the long run. Comparing our actions and OPEC's: they care more about the long-term health of our economy than we do. The sooner we start using less oil, the
better off we'll be.
Then there's that pesky problem of global warming. OPEC is..... |
|
|
|
|
|
Drill offshore? Drill in the Arctic Natural Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)?
These are two of the primary suggestions to try and reduce skyrocketing oil prices. What about the effects of these 'solutions' on greenhouse gas emissions?
According to James Hansen, one of the earliest to warn us about global warming, "this is the last chance." |
|
|
|
|
|
From the Wall Street Journal Online two weeks ago - The Coming
Oil Investment Boom.
Some really bad ideas and points until the end when he points out that what's needed are "carbon taxes as a de facto consumption tax." Other excerpts with my comments:
"....it's working. Money is pouring into Canada's massive tar sands." [and, Canada is wrestling with balancing oil from tar sands with
greenhouse gas emissions.]
"If today's towering price of oil reflects some speculator's bet on a long-term scarcity of liquid motor fuels, this will prove the misguided bet of a
lifetime." [Wrongo. Oil prices..... |
|
|
|
|
|
Concise. Powerful in its truth. By Charles Krauthammer on washingtonpost.com - At $4, Everybody Gets Rational
The excerpts I love (my bold) -
"America's sudden change in car-buying habits makes suitable mockery of that absurd debate Congress put on last December on fuel efficiency standards....
You want more fuel-efficient cars? Don't regulate. Don't mandate. Don't scold. Don't appeal to the better angels of our nature. Do one thing: Hike the cost of gas until you find the price point.
Unfortunately, instead of hiking the price ourselves by means of a gasoline tax that could be instantly refunded..... |
|
|
|
|
|
[Solve4Biggies hits: 56,000.
Thanks for reading, commenting and forwarding........ a federal tax shift is not going to happen from the top, down.]
^ ^ ^ ^
From the New York Times - States Get In on Calls for a Gas Tax Holiday.
Excerpt (my comments in square brackets):
- Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida has been fighting to cut 10 cents from the state’s gasoline tax for two weeks in July. Lawmakers in Missouri, New York and Texas have also proposed a summer break from state gas ... |
|
|
|
|
|
From the AP on May 29, 2008 - White House issues climate report 4
years late. Excerpts including the 'Big 6' problems coming at us (my bold):
"Andrew Weaver, a Canadian climate scientist who was not involved in the effort called it 'a litany of bad news in store for the
U.S.'
1_ Increased heat deaths and deaths from climate-worsened smog. In Los Angeles alone yearly heat fatalities could increase by more
than 1,000 by 2080, and the Midwest and Northeast are most..... |
|
|
|
|
|
The last entry contained a link to President Carter's often derided energy policy
speech in April 1977. What a much better place we would be in if we had listened to him and acted....
Some key statements:
- The most important thing about these proposals is that the alternative may be a national catastrophe. Further delay can affect our strength and our power as a
nation. Our decision about energy will test the character of the American people and the ability of the President and the Congress to govern. This difficult effort will be the "moral
equivalent of..... |
|
|
|
|
|
The title of this entry is from a Larisa Alexandrovna article on Huffingtonpost.com - You Want Courage? Are You Willing to Support It? Her article is about the new movie
War Inc. by John Cusack. She cites evidence of "a distinct stench of blacklisting."
There are parallels between the lack of a sustainable U.S. energy policy and the statement -- You Want Courage? Are you willing to support it?
Back in the 1970's President Jimmy Carter recognized and communicated the need for the U.S. to create a sustainable energy policy. Excerpts from his televised energy policy speech on April 18, 1977:..... |
|
|
|
|
|
The same crap keeps playing out. This time I put much more of the fault with our elected representatives instead of the Big Oil executives. Fault for: 1) wasted congressional, executive and media time;
2) misplaced 'wrath' that does no-thing to solve our energy policy problems.
About a month and a half ago, House leaders 'summoned' oil executives to Capitol Hill: Disingenuous theater - congress and big oil.
Today our senators decided to look foolish. From the AP - Big Oil defends profits before irate senators. Excerpts (my comments in brackets):
"On a day oil prices leaped to unheard-of highs [$133 a barrel], senators lined up Big Oil's biggest executives and pummeled them with..... |
|
|
|
|
|
May 14, 2008 (U.S. Dept. of the Interior news release): Secretary Kempthorne
Announces Decision to Protect Polar Bears under Endangered Species Act. OK, good - it's well documented that Polar Bears are in serious trouble as a result of global warming.
Seems that this would also be a prime opportunity to recognize the U.S. contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and do something to reduce them. (maybe save ourselves and future generations
from some serious problems too)
No. "In making the announcement today, Secretary Kempthorne reiterated President Bush’s statement last month that the Endangered Species Act (ESA) was..... |
|
|
|
|
|
Even with oil at well over $120 per barrel, we still need a phased-in, federal tax shift from income to non-renewable energy. We need to create a sustainable energy
future.
It was inevitable that the price of oil and gas would increase. It wasn't inevitable that Americans would, for example, be driving vehicles that cost $60-$100 to fill up (much more in some
cases). What are we going to learn and APPLY from the situation we're in now?
A week ago Amitai Etzioni penned this article on The Huffington Post - Economic Suicide. I think his "time machine" perspective won't be far from reality..... |
|
|
|
|
|
Princeton University has been sponsored by BP and Ford since 2000 to "develop solutions to the greenhouse problem." Named the Carbon
Mitigation Initiative (CMI), one of the most valuable products of the venture is the Stabilization Triangle - comparing
carbon emitted on our current path to that of a 0% increase (flat path) between 2005 and 2055 creates a triangle. If we can stay on the flat path, and then reduce carbon emissions after 2055,
"we can steer a safer course."
Particularly valuable is how they break this triangle into eight wedges of one billion tons..... |
|
|
|
|
|
Senator Obama has the right answer to Senator Clinton's backing of John
McCain's summer gas tax holiday proposal - it's ridiculous/asinine.
I have one question for Senators Clinton and McCain -
Right now, is it best for us to use more oil or less?
(Please - someone ask them this question.)
People are smarter than Senators McCain and Clinton give them credit for. Here are two articles on Senator Obama's denunciation of a gas tax holiday and Senator Clinton's support for
it.
Salon.com - The gas tax battle continues
Excerpts:
Some experts even support an increase in the gas tax, arguing that..... |
|
|
|
|
|
Madison's City Channel 12 recorded the April 30, 2008 Rotary Club of Madison presentation -
If you don't have
"Realplayer" (a free download) - click on the blue and yellow icon. Then scroll down to "streaming video: special presentations" and the last item under "April
2008". The tax shift presentation starts after 12 1/2 minutes. (PowerPoint is below)
Innovative Solutions to Energy-Related Challenges
Overview -.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
As mentioned a week ago in the entry Been living under a Popsicle stick?, "...we
are terribly vulnerable economically as we continue to import over 60% of our daily oil." For natural gas, in 2006 we imported 19% up from 16% in 2002.
We learned from Hurricane Katrina how a disruption in oil supply and gasoline refining caused gasoline prices to increase; reserves are low, there's little leeway. From an FTC Statement to
the U.S. Senate in September 2005 - Market Forces, Competitive Dynamics, and Gasoline
Prices -
"In the recent weeks since Hurricane Katrina, gasoline prices rose sharply to..... |
|
|
|
|
|
What is the media’s role/responsibility in finding solutions to huge problems such as global warming and U.S. dependence on foreign oil?
I’d say it’s to present information on differing views and generate debate.
Don’t see much on tax shifting in the main stream media - why not?
Let’s try FRONTLINE. A shorter version of the letter below was forwarded electronically.
**********************
Dear FRONTLINE producers,
Your Hot Politics segment was invaluable -- fascinating, informative and
sobering. Thanks.
What's next for you on the issue of global warming and energy issues? Please do a show on potential solutions to..... |
|
|
|
|
|
Enact a tax shift?....... raise non-renewable energy prices now?!
Oil was over $116 a barrel last week, we're in the midst of a credit and housing crisis, the number of jobs has decreased, we're seeing inflationary pressure, and most economists agree there's a
recession ahead.
Paul, have you been living under a Popsicle stick?
********************
No. Our energy use and mix are not sustainable. So, it's simple -- we can pay now or pay a lot more later. But, the "pay now" is not higher
taxes: the recommended federal tax shift will be revenue-neutral for the government, families and individuals. The "pay now" will add..... |
|
|
|
|
|
Last week Senator John McCain proposed a federal gasoline tax holiday for the upcoming summer months; motorists would not pay the 18.4 cents/gallon
tax. MSNBC article here.
Some big problems this proposal creates:
- more greenhouse gas emissions;
- increased dependency on foreign energy;
- more air pollution;
- a larger trade deficit.
The best argument for a federal tax shift that lowers income taxes and raises non-renewable energy taxes may be seeing the problems an energy tax reduction causes.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
The new 3.65 billion barrel of oil Bakken formation estimate in North
Dakota and Montana is not a big deal. To make a difference a new find/estimate would need to be larger and, more importantly, we'd need a nationwide commitment to use it
well. Meaning that when it's used up:
- we are not sad that we found it because of the increase in greenhouse gases/global warming;
- we used it to create a sustainable energy future.
3.65 billion barrels (mean value within the 3.0 - 4.3 billion estimate) is a 17% percent increase in U.S. reserves and represents a whopping 2 YEARS OF ADDITIONAL U.S..... |
|
|
|
|
|
It's nice to have the International Monetary Fund (IMF) suggest much of what's on this
blog. On February 22, 2008 the IMF released The Fiscal Implications of Climate Change.
Excerpts (my comments in parentheses):
Climate change
The potential fiscal implications are immediate as well as lasting, and liable to affect—in differing forms and degree—all Fund
members. Climate change is a global externality problem, calling for some degree of international fiscal
cooperation… (yes, we need to be paying the external costs of our energy use at the time we use it.)
Energy taxes vs. cap and trade..... |
|
|
|
|
|
History will ask,
"How did the people living between 1950 and 2020 use the earth's finite oil supplies? (see oil history graph below) Did they use it to ensure future generations would have sustainable energy
sources?"
Here are two examples and a fossil fuel efficiency quiz..... |
|
|
|
|
|
A sad spectacle. Both sides largely playing the game --> "....we go through this, it's not pretty, but then we get to go back to our comfy and powerful
lives with very little (if anything) changing for the good of the U.S."
I'm referring to Congressional questioning of Big Oil executives this week about why oil company profits are so high and why oil companies should continue to receive billions in tax breaks.
Now, of course, subsidies for energy companies are a bad idea so one part of the theater is good.
First: the questions are ludicrous. In the absence of breaking any laws..... |
|
|
|
|
|
Thank goodness. House Oversight Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., is taking a real stand against increasing greenhouse gas emissions (GGE's).
As described in an AP article on LiveScience.com - Air Force Prod Aids Coal-To-Fuel
Plans - gasoline, diesel and jet fuel can be made from coal. The problem (from the article): "Without emissions controls, experts say
coal-to-liquids plants could churn out double the greenhouse gases as oil."
The Air Force has an admirable goal: "...wean itself from foreign oil..." Unfortunately, our dependence on foreign energy is not our only huge energy-related problem - global warming is too. We need an energy policy that addresses both..... |
|
|
|
|
|
Cap and trade is not the answer to our global warming dilemma - it's complex, risky
for markets and costly for everyone (except for those that run the carbon markets).
From an article two weeks ago in The Wall Street Journal online - Economist Strikes Gold In Climate-Change
Fight. Excerpts:
Yesterday, Climate Exchange's stock jumped 16% after the firm reported a tripling in 2007 revenue to £13.6 million, or about $27 million. That gives the
company, which handles about 90% of the trading on carbon exchanges, a market capitalization of roughly $1.31 billion. Mr. Sandor's 20% stake is worth more than.....
P.S. - Participate in Earth Hour on Saturday March 29, 2008 at 8pm and spread the word!:
http://www.earthhour.org |
|
|
|
|
|
The worst two things: war and making large parts of our environment, where people are living, uninhabitable.
Every day we're doing both and it's likely to get worse, much worse.
There never was a good war or bad peace.
Benjamin Franklin
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From an Associated Press article (October 2007):
"...the stresses of a changing global environment may heighten the 'danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states.'"
Norwegian committee of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
"'Climate change is and will be a significant threat to our national security and in a larger sense to life on Earth as we know it to be' retired General Gordon R. Sullivan,....." |
|
|
|
|
|
Not to be outdone by the Bush Administration, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sent
a letter to Vice President Cheney last week encouraging
begging for oil as a cornerstone of U.S. energy policy. In fairness, she also has led on legislation to end
subsidies for non-renewable energy. But, begging OPEC members to 'open the spigots' flies in the face of a sustainable energy policy AND contradicts the very goals outlined
in her letter. Excerpts:
".....our growing dependence on foreign oil have caused great hardship
for American families and businesses struggling to make ends meet in this economic downturn."
Yes
".....your upcoming trip to the Middle East provides an opportunity .....
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
P.S. - page views were over 1,500 last week. A new high. Thanks for reading. |
|
|
|
|
|
When, according to the ABC News article - Bush Asks Saudi King to Open Oil Spigots,
our President publicly asks Saudi Arabia's oil minister to increase OPEC oil output, that's asking. When he's told no and then asks the King privately, that's begging.
Excerpt from the article:
"One hour after his plea for more Saudi oil was publicly rejected by the kingdom's oil minister, President Bush made a private visit to Saudi Arabia's King
Abdullah to again ask him to open the spigots." (he got a second 'no')
It's a sad (and criminal) story - especially given the lives lost in this Iraq War.
~ ~ ~ ~
A) In 1999, then Haliburton CEO Dick Cheney stated:
By some estimates, there will be an average of two-percent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead, along with,..... |
|
|
|
|
|
Global warming is an external cost of our fossil fuel use. It's only the tip of the
iceberg, but here's a specific example -
Recent New York Times and Salon.com articles on an Alaskan village that is suing 20 companies over global warming. From the NYT - Flooded Village Files Suit, Citing Corporate Link to Climate Change. Excerpt:
- “There has been a long campaign by power, coal and oil companies to mislead the public about the science of global warming,” the suit says. The campaign, it says, contributed "to the
... |
|
|
|
|
|
A phased-in, federal tax from income to non-renewable energy is only going to be enacted when people believe it is needed.
Unfortunately, based on
progress so far, it's going to take catastrophic events larger than the ones we're experiencing now. For example, our war for oil in Iraq (I just heard on the radio that
the Iraq government just agreed to allow Exxon Mobil, Chevron and Royal Dutch Shell to pump Iraqi oil out of the ground for them; they'll be paid, of course, in oil
-- what a surprise) and severe weather, floods and drought being experienced around the world ... |
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
