« HTC Purenergy to Acquire CO2 Technologies Pty Ltd | Main | Report: Coal-Powered Ethanol Plant CO2 Emissions 92% Higher than Gas-Powered »
Incoming Chair of US Senate Energy Committee Says US Will Miss Window to Tackle Climate Change
25 November 2006
Environmental Finance. In a speech at the London School of Economics on Tuesday, US Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) warned that the US will not be able to take sufficient action to curb its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions within the timeframe scientists say is necessary.
Scientific and economic calls for more expeditious action on global warming are increasing. Also in London on Tuesday to accept the Duke of Edinburgh Conservation Medal from the WWF, NASA scientist James Hansen said:
There is still a huge gap between what is understood about global warming by the scientific community, and what is known about global warming by those who need to know—the public and policymakers.
We must close that gap and move our energy systems in a fundamentally different direction within about a decade, or we will have pushed the planet past a tipping point beyond which it will be impossible to avoid far-ranging undesirable consequences.
The recently published Stern review (earlier post) called for a successor to the Kyoto Protocol to be signed in 2007, not in 2010 or 2011 as is currently expected due to the urgency of addressing the situation.
But speaking at the London School of Economics, Senator Bingaman, currently ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee who will become chair of the Committee when the Democrats take control of the Senate in January 2007, said: “I think that the reality is this issue is probably not going to ripen and mature and get solved in that window.”
Moreover, Bingaman indicated that the US could opt for a domestic solution for cutting emissions, rather than join the Kyoto Protocol after its current targets expire in 2012. He said: “I really don’t think the Kyoto Protocol is something that anyone is debating in the US. The debate is now to the question of what are realistic goals that we could hope to agree and accomplish.”
But he added: “The ideal end result will be to get a cap-and-trade system that will be world-wide. The US has got to do something credible at the national level.“
However, Bingaman suggested that it would be difficult to complete action on a cap-and-trade system until 2009, when a new White House comes to power.
“Many of the potential presidential candidates have stated their support for a system of mandatory controls,” said Bingaman.
November 25, 2006 in Climate Change, Policy | Permalink | Comments (59) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/6934534
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Incoming Chair of US Senate Energy Committee Says US Will Miss Window to Tackle Climate Change:
Comments
The US is so hugely important to the world economy that the new Democrat-led Congress would be wise to spend 6-12 months just on public hearings to educate themselves about the current state of the science of both climate change and the likely consequences of proposed policy option to fight it. The subject matter is complex and I suspect many legislators are still ill-equipped to cast a vote. The process should include inviting those states and cities that are ahead of the curve to give testimony.
There is still a lot of convincing left to do before the US electorate will accept the inevitable downsides to their standard of living: switching to smaller vehicles, postponing vacations to pay for home insulation, cutting down on meat consumption to free up land for biofuel production etc. Serious climate change mitigation costs serious money, so it's more important to get the policy right than to get it right away.
However, industry should be given incentives to get cracking even in the absence of a national policy. One option would be to give those corporations taking substantive measures pro-actively more influence over how the legislation is drafted, including emissions credits for these earlybirds.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/24/AR2006112401361.html
Unfortunately, campaign contributions tend to trump all other considerations in the US Congress, so to will be difficult to herd the cats in this way. Ms. Pelosi has her work cut out for her.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Nov 25, 2006 6:30:35 AM
I'm 37 years old and I remember being made fun of for a passion for alternative energy. I was the only kid pushing wind power. Yesturday at UMass Amherst I heard a bunch of college kids talking about climate change. The general quotes went something like this. 'Your generation wasn't sure about global warming'. Or 'People may not have know for sure with your generation but now it's pretty much everyone knows it's real and here'. Even people speaking about the need for more cellulose funding for vehicle fuel. This at a pizza shop. The kids today know it's here and real and going to get worse. The next generation may grow algae just to bury it and sequester carbon.
Posted by: Andy | Nov 25, 2006 6:51:44 AM
Imagine a Carbon Tax funding industrial scale algae to bury, in a world scale. A dream but the Carbon Tax should be here and used agressively.
Posted by: Andy | Nov 25, 2006 6:53:35 AM
Please explain this algae/bury thing. Do they make bio-diesel first and then bury the algae??? What gives??
Posted by: jj | Nov 25, 2006 7:04:15 AM
Regardless of what Bingaman thinks about the window, he should get cracking now and put a global warming bill on the table. A bill should be introduced and debated. If the Republicans filibuster it, it will be clear who is obstructing this critical action. If Bush vetoes it, it will be also be clear who are the obstructionists.
Barring a comphrehensive bill, we need to start by banning coal fired plants unless they will be sequestering co2.
Posted by: t | Nov 25, 2006 7:19:08 AM
No denialist rants yet? Must be too early in the day. ;)
Posted by: pizmo | Nov 25, 2006 7:29:36 AM
Pizmo -
I guess Sen. Inhofe is still in his turkey-induced annual tryptophane stupor. Ironically, moderate Republicans - a small but resilient bunch mostly out West - will look to get back in the game / keep the Presidency in GOP hands in 2008 and, may choose to co-opt the Dems on climate change. This could happen if even their supporters conclude the bloody and expensive wild goose chase in Iraq was really mostly about the oil, after all. If so, even a veto from #43 might be overriden.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Nov 25, 2006 8:20:01 AM
Every study/report I hear regarding CO2 emissions further convinces me that the only way to counter our environmental issues is through population control laws. Who knows what the true carrying capacity of this Earth is, but sustaining a world of 1 billion pople vs 10 billion seems a lot more feasible to me.
How about excessively taxing people that choose to have more than one child?
Surely, someone will twist this message into something it is not, but the fact is one way to reduce energy demands is to reduce consumption.
Posted by: cs1992 | Nov 25, 2006 8:27:22 AM
Perhaps some students at a university know what this climate change stuff is all about.
But your average American. Heck.. even your average journalist still has no idea.
What we need now is direct dialog... Repetative, Republican style (beat it into your heads) dialog & and warnings about climate change.
And about the instability of depending on oil.
If the Democrats knew about technology themselves... they would:
0. Make it clear that the most patriotic thing to do at this point is to drive an electric vehicle. It may also be the best thing to do to help our children and grandchildren survive in a stable world.
Establish a V2G protocol. Create implementations.
1. Use government funds to get GE and perhaps Energizer or whoever to build LiIon battery factories in the US. Build them for massive scale. Talking a WW2 level of effort here.
2. Incentivize the purchase of these battery packs for use in vehicles. 20 million cars are purchased annually in the US. All must be electric.
3. Once these factories are in place & the money is ready to go... Pull out of Iraq. There will be chaos. Price of oil will go up. But we'll be ready with electric cars.
4. continue with buildout of wind farms. deep offshore wind farms. pump serious $$$ into solar cell research. & advanced battery research.
Gotta start moving.
Posted by: Matt | Nov 25, 2006 8:57:55 AM
One more thing:
Let people know that the one change required for them is:
Forget about pumping up at the gas station.
The way we'll be doing it from now on will be to charge up overnight.
If on a road trip, then we'll charge up over 30 minutes -- over a meal.
Otherwise... you can rent a car for a long road trip.
Posted by: Matt | Nov 25, 2006 9:02:51 AM
The way we'll be doing it from now on will be to charge up overnight.
If you plan is premised on that, the plan's not going to work.
Posted by: pizmo | Nov 25, 2006 9:10:00 AM
If they gasify biomass, they can use the H2 and sequester the CO2 in spent NG wells. This would use the plants to take CO2 out of the air while providing energy.
Posted by: SJC | Nov 25, 2006 9:10:09 AM
Good suggestions Matt. But we still must get to EVs via a transition technology and that today is hybrid. If we are pumping up with biodiesel and ethanol/butanol - at least we are burning renewable energy with reduced GHG.
The transition across hybrid to EV will take a while - there is infrastructure to consider since millions of EVs recharging in 30 minutes will severely strain the grid.
GHG awareness is greater than ever before. Once the entrepreneurs show us there is $$ in clean energy - a lot of big boys will climb aboard. Watch the algae CO2 scrubbing technologies to lead the way.
Posted by: gr | Nov 25, 2006 9:18:27 AM
Matt -
BEVs are still having serious performance problems in cold winter weather. This is an example of how pushing a particular solution without a fair analysis of all available options can lead to a poor decision, especially if it is enshrined in legislation or regulation (cp. the push for a hydrogen highway that is largely the result of California ARB's insistence on protecting its ZEV mandate at any cost).
Government should specify the macroscopically desired outcome and pick effective but blunt instruments such as population health and tax philosophy to set the context for industry and consumers.
Pols ought to steer clear of prescribing the specific technological means to achieve their goals, to avoid stifling future innovation. The main reason they don't is because they get campaign contributions from favored companies; also, voters are often more willing to support concrete solutions available today than general public policy goals. Journalists rarely have scientific or engineering backgrounds and anyhow tend to have limited column inches or airtime available to them. In-depth features (e.g. feature-length movies) cost money and require effort on the part of generally lazy consumers. Discovery Channel et al. are great but their audience is small compared to outlets for traditional entertainment drivel.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Nov 25, 2006 9:21:11 AM
Since we are talking about politicians and batteries - The Lithium battery was invented and developed at Sandia National Labs, using taxpayer money.
Just before Duracell was sold to the Japanese for untold $B. Sandia was told to sell the rights to the Lithium battry to Duracell for $1. (Energizer is also owned by the Japanese)
All this happened on Rayguns watch.
Ever wonder why they invited him to Japan right after he left office and gave him $3M for speaking fee.
(At a time when he couldn't remember his first name)
Posted by: Lucas | Nov 25, 2006 9:45:21 AM
I was interested to hear about an interview and talk by Dr James Hansen, physicist, adjunct professor: Earth and Environmental Sciences, Columbia University, director: NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Science at the Oil Drum (http://europe.theoildrum.com/story/2006/11/18/93514/869#more).
The main point that I had not heard before was that the projected emissions from gasoline and natural gas aren't critical to climate change since what's estimated to be left in the ground simply isn't that much.
What we all should really be taking aim at is coal. This kind of makes me change my perspecitve a little on electric vehicles although any reduction in CO2 has to be positive and zero emission cars would certainly better the air here in LA.
Texas governor Rick Perry is doing his best to force through construction permits for 17 new dirty coal plants ASAP before there is any change of legislation. Of course China is also another major worry. In my opinion those countries/regions willing to impose CO2 costs should also impose CO2 import duties on goods from regions where these costs aren't taken into account. A world wide trading group could then form with those regions excluded feeling more and more isolated and, more importantly, being damaged economically.
Posted by: marcus | Nov 25, 2006 10:07:05 AM
Lucas:
Duracell is owned by Gillette, which is now part of Procter & Gamble (NYSE symbol PG); Energizer Holdings is based in St. Louis, MO (NYSE symbol ENR).
The most important manufacturers of rechargeable batteries now are the Japanese (Sanyo, Panasonic, and Sony), but the new technology for lithium came out of MIT (A123), Reno, NV (Altair Nano), and others.
The point is we're not dependent on Japan, or anybody else, for lithium batteries for our future BEVs and HEVs.
Posted by: JamesEE | Nov 25, 2006 10:45:54 AM
Marcus. Import carbon duties have been proposed in Europse and btw the target, among others, would be the United States. Something needs to be done to get the U.S. off the dime. Bring on the pain.
Posted by: t | Nov 25, 2006 10:46:41 AM
CS1992:
Reducing population does not necessarily translates into a NET reduction in energy consumption and pollution emissions. Americans and Canadians over consume at 2+ times the average European and Japanese, 5 times the average Chinese and 17 times the average Indian and by almost 5 times the world average.
Active energy conservation may be a better solution. Americans and Canadians could easily reduce their per capita energy consumption by 50+% together with associated GHG and fine particles (PM) emission.
It is often just a matter of making the proper choices. More efficient HVAC, home appliances, lights, residences, offices, factories, cars, trucks, trains, power plants etc., don't cost that much more but could consume 50% to 60% less while polluting much less.
Twice the actual USA + Canada population could consume half the energy and pollute half as much as we do now and have a very high standard of living.
Every time I see a two legged pork barrel eating a 3000+ calories meal it makes me sick. Many people eat like three. No wonder we over consume energy by about 5 times the world average.
Posted by: Harvey D. | Nov 25, 2006 10:52:24 AM
No denialist rants yet? Must be too early in the day. ;)
I happen to think that reality is somewhere in between Sen. "Global warming is a hoax" Inhofe and Dr. James "We're all DOOMED!" Hansen. But anyone who shows any hint of skepticism here is immediately attacked from all sides.
My reasons for wanting alternative energy may be different than yours, but I had hoped we could come together here and find mutually satisfactory solutions.
Posted by: Cervus | Nov 25, 2006 12:44:45 PM
The politicians are still running scared from the false choice Bush used for rejecting the Kyoto protocol. Namely, significantly reducing our CO2 emissions will hurt our economy. Politicians would do well to make the opposite point that solving the global warming problem would benefit us far more than it would cost us.
I recently helped convert a Toyota Prius to a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV). Driving around afterwards in PHEV mode convinced me we have found a way to significantly reduce our addiction to oil. Range is not a problem for PHEV's since they have greater range than conventional gasoline or diesel vehicles. Our PHEV can be charged quickly (240 volt), charged overnight (120 volt outlet), or not charged at all if you don't mind paying more for fuel.
As the senior energy services engineer for an electric utility, and as someone who has looked at this issue carefully, plugging in electric vehicles will not overwhelm our electrical distribution system. Time-of-use rates can encourage off-peak charging at night. PHEV's may even be able to reduce our system peaks if they are equipped with vehicle-to-grid (V2G) capabilities to feed power back to the grid during peak periods. Coming up with the additional energy is not a problem either since installing 350 ft2 of solar PV on your roof would generate as much energy as a PHEV consumes in a year. The solar/PHEV combination helps level out the loads on our power grid by filling in the low valleys at night during charging and the solar reduces the peaks during the day when the car is out and about on the road.
The Prius we converted has an AC and DC-to-DC charger on board. Each night the charger is used to charge an extra battery pack installed in the back of the Prius. In PHEV mode, the charger takes energy from the battery pack to keep the Prius's standard NMH battery pack fully charged. With the all-electric mode enabled on the Prius, it will drive without the gasoline engine coming on for as long as the extra battery pack holds out (10 to 40 miles). Once the extra battery pack runs low, the gasoline engine kicks in and the car runs like a regular hybrid. The all-electric mode can handle most of your daily commuting needs, and your gasoline usage is reduced dramatically.
Posted by: James White | Nov 25, 2006 4:38:19 PM
In both parties there are several groups of people.
In the gop you have the unbeleivers. They simply dont trust any of this because well lets face facts alot of the people invlved are scammers. Also alot of people in the unbelivers are in the boat of having power and money now and not wanting to waste it on anything that will weaken them and thier ability to get through what even a halfwit has to see is gona be BAD TIMES.
Then there is the tech fortress. I am part of this group to some extent. We figure mankind is about as likely to manage anything like this as michael jackson is of becomming pres of the boyscouts of america. We so figure that teching up and preping for all bleep breaking sloose is a good idea.
And finaly there is the pragmatists. They already know we are going to heck in a handbasket and they plan accourdingly. They will work on global warming projects... not to save the world but to make money so they can save themsevles.
The dems are in a number of groups too.
The rose glasses group that just HOPES beyond hope that somehow we fix this. Denilaists realy most of em will go stark raving nutbnunnies soon.
The power and money gang. Want to be in charge and taking bribes and gathering money. They see power as a way to stay alive.
The grant whores. Who will say and do anything for a grant and will do anything but come up with something to end thier grants;/ as in actauly fix anything.
The true beleivers. The ones who just want to make the world well again. Nice bunch of people ... tho about as likely to et ahnything done as ever.
And the hangers on. These are on both sides and are made of people you see standing behind people getting noticed. They dont actauly do anything at all but they are everywhere.
Now the fun starts when various groups inside these two parties get together on things. Like my group often gets together with the rosies and the eal the worlds and several other groups and makes stuff happen. Why? Because the dems can get power and money off our tech projects the rosey people can feel good about thew work the healers can feel we are healing something and he pragmatists can also make money off it and so on and so forth.
Thats why the tech up is the setup that is winning. We simply bribe everyone else:) Hell even the unbeleivers like it because they can make money off it and its patents.
And that is the world today.
Oh and the political change of office is also just a panned gimmick as everything else is. The dems and gop and both amke a killing off a change in leadership and the techies can make what we want the rosies will feel all rosy the healers will feel healed and the unbelivers will gather alot of moola from it and get patents and whatnot and so on and so forth. And we will still be going exactly where we have always been going and always will.
Posted by: wintermane | Nov 25, 2006 5:13:32 PM
James,
Thank you for sharing your knowledge and experience. This is what I think GreenCar is for, to bring facts to the table and come to some valid conclusions about what makes a GreenCar.
Posted by: SJC | Nov 25, 2006 5:52:29 PM
James:
I'm very currious. What brand/size/cost/properties did the battery you use have? What kind of controller (assuming you added one) did you use. How long did it take? What was the final cost?
Posted by: Neil | Nov 25, 2006 8:14:50 PM
Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, June 1992:
“We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse”.
“sustainable development... can be implemented by deliberate quest of poverty… reduced resource consumption… and set levels of mortality control”.
Aaron Wildavsky, professor of political science at Berkeley:
"Warming (and warming alone), through its primary antidote of withdrawing carbon from production and consumption, is capable of realizing the environmentalist's dream of an egalitarian society based on rejection of economic growth in favor of a smaller population's eating lower on the food chain, consuming a lot less, and sharing a much lower level of resources much more equally.”
Nothing really new under the sun.
Posted by: Andrey | Nov 26, 2006 1:14:35 AM
Re:Dems = worldsavers vs. Repubs = planet killers.Have you noticed how many incoming dems of prominence come from coal states{Byrd et al}.Perhaps you should follow ctl stories and see Virginia and West virginia dems promising jobs, federal money,and eternal life to voters.
Do a search of projects named after Byrd and you will see he is the master of the pork barrel.Meet the new bosss ,same as the old boss,we wont get fooled again,Or will we ?
Posted by: earl | Nov 26, 2006 7:30:14 AM
This is the same basic plan that existed 4 yars ago.. only its allot easyer now.
1 Change of leadership. Wheneever itflipfops america gets a get out of icky mess free card and we will use it:)
2 Gte out of irawq. Politicanly america cantr afford to exit iraq unless under new leadership. I could explain why but its long and dull. Suffice to sayits annoying.
2 War and global warming. Lots and lots of money to be made now that the spendy and unpleasnt stuff has already been forced on others;/ Easy to do too as america deindustrializes. Course whoever "does" it will get the blame for a ton of job losses and factry closings.. most of wich have been planned for over a decade;/ Ah the sweat funk of politics.
3 Deindustrialization combined with tons of fired and NOT rehired unuion workers results in change of party in charge again...What work on biofuels and what not gets packaged as self suffciancy and a national emergency as middle east melts down. Maerica for the most part manages to become 100% non depenant on middle east.. would have done so anyway no matter who was in charge but now various sides grab credit and dance away from blame.
Final notes.. climate change happens fully and all bleep breaks loose. But we dont care... Well we "care" but from the saety of ourhurricane proof climate change insured lives in the AMERICA OF THE FUTRE!!!! spelling errors intentional...;/
It is soo gona be an interesting time.
2
Posted by: wintermane | Nov 26, 2006 8:17:17 AM
Nothing really new under the sun.
Your cherrypicking and paranoia? Yes, they are consistent - I'll give you that.
Posted by: pizmo | Nov 26, 2006 8:59:27 AM
This may be another way of saying that we can not realistically make up for the past 6 lost years. All we can do is have a honest evaluation of our alternatives and take action. I wonder about an alternate timeline beginning December 2000. Would we have worked with the rest of the world on solutions? I look at GW in another way. It is just good policy to reduce our use of finite fossil fuels, for so many obvious reasons.
Posted by: SJC | Nov 26, 2006 11:59:24 AM
I always find it interesting to read all the extreme and often missinformed rhetoric.
First, let's all agree that regardless of whether you believe that climate change is the result of man's activity or simply part of a much larger (and longer to the tune of 100's of years) natural climate cycle there are reasons we should look to reduce ghg emissions.
The primary reason should be energy independence which leads to enhanced national security. If we look to improve our uses of renewable energy systems and domestically produced energies across all modes of the economy (transport, manufacturing, generating, residential, etc) we will accomplish a those primary objectives and the secondary goal of reduced ghg.
Furthermore, not only should we look to enhance the use of bio-fules in transport and other sectors of the economy, we need to move to PHEV systems quickly. Tax incentives or penalties combined with significant investment are the best way to accomplish this task.
Now the part many on this site won't like to hear. For all the ranting and raving about the Bush policies, I don't see anyone giving him credit for the positives steps he has taken. This site has discussed endlessly about the scientific advancements coming out of government funded programs, DARPA and government labs. Further, I have seen numerous articles discussing government grants, competitions and programs to bring cellulosic ethenol, hydrogen, more efficient PV cells and other energy technologys to market. Of final note on this issue, the government is providing a majority of the funding to accelerate the new nano lithium battery technology that so many of us are waiting for.
This administration has invested more money in alternative energy technology, clean coal technology, hydrogen storage/production/fuel cells, bio-fuels, etc than any previous administration and probably more than all previous administrations combined. It was this administration that extended the tax breaks for wind energy installation, that has continued to support tax credits for U.S. ethenol production (even though many including myself can argue that ethenol is not the best approach) and other tax incentives. He was also the first President in 10+ years to increase the fuel economy standards (although not enough) and has implemented a change in the way mpg will be calculated reflecting real world driving.
The number of Megawatts of power produced by wind energy has more than trippled under this administration.
Now lets look at some of the obstructionists. Yes, for all the good the Bush administration has done they have also obstructed some needed changes. He has failed to lead a legistlative solution to clean up and modernize our entire electrical production infastructure from generation to transmission. He also supported tax incentives for the oil and gas industry that are popular targets but probably misguided ones. (Most of these incentives were to encourage domestic exploration/production and increased refinery capacity which we will need for security regardless of alternative energy development) Additionally, the administrations focus on Hydrogen while encouraging has obstructed more immediate changes. Finally, they have failed to establish legislation to encourage energy efficiency across all sectors of the economy.
But the administration is not the only obstructionist of note. Senator Kennedy has been fighting a wind farm off his beloved coast. This "not in my back yard" approach benefits no one and unfortunately is an obstructionist tack shared by many other politicians and even some environmental groups. We see this not only with regard to wind energy but also nuclear and drilling for pertroleum. I find it humerous that Cuba is now allowing China to drill for oil off our coast, actually tapping our shared reserves while Florida, environmentalists and politicians prevent our own companies from doing so. Further, house and senate politicians on both sides of the isle have failed to dramtically increase the fuel economy standards for fear of facing union reprisal. We can see where all the catering to Detroit has gottent he auto industry as they now seek Federal bailout for thier poor judgement. Finally, we have
Will these comments be popular, no because people would rather talk about what is wrong than what is being done right. Could more be done, yes but that is always the case. Would I like to see funding increased to an even greater extent yes. But far too many of these posts are one sided political rants that show a lack of basic knowledge of the issues, the solutions, the costs and the research.
Posted by: emm | Nov 26, 2006 3:12:39 PM
This administration has invested more money in alternative energy technology, clean coal technology, hydrogen storage/production/fuel cells, bio-fuels, etc than any previous administration and probably more than all previous administrations combined.
LOL.
The number of Megawatts of power produced by wind energy has more than trippled under this administration.
Right, because Dick Cheney loves windmills.
But far too many of these posts are one sided political rants that show a lack of basic knowledge of the issues, the solutions, the costs and the research.
Gasoline is triple and natural gas quintuple what it was a few years ago. There's some basic knowledge for you.
Posted by: pizmo | Nov 26, 2006 3:24:47 PM
Pizmo... you are proving my point by demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge and showing a political bias.
If you want facts then I suggest you check yours.
http://www.awea.org/projects/index.html
Since you see fit to laugh at facts, please share with us all that Clinton and those prior did to advance alternative energy, fuel cells, advanced battery technology, etc. What investments did there administrations make. A daily read of this site always discusses new grants or Federal funding for these and other promising technologies.
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/cleancoal/
Secondly, blaming the adminstration for the costs of natural gas and gasoline shows a complete lack of understanding of the commodity markets. Further, our lack of refining capacity, lack of new drilling (these two are the result of Dems and environmentalists) and teh strength of the economy are the major reasons for the cost of fuels. Finally on this note your pricing statement:
"Gasoline is triple and natural gas quintuple what it was a few years ago"
Unless you are talking 20 years ago, this is utter crap. The cost of natural gas for the week of 11/16/06 was $7.45 per MMBtu, the cost in 1994 was $6.41 per MMBtu.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/data_publications/historical_natural_gas_annual/current/pdf/table_04.pdf
The problem with this site is that if anyone disagrees or voices an opinion different from those ranting raving lunatics is attacked.
Posted by: emm | Nov 26, 2006 3:55:28 PM
Pizmo... you are proving my point by demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge and showing a political bias.
Sure, pal. If I critique a certain party's leader's policies based on facts, then I'm "showing a political bias". You, on the other hand, with your ridiculous apologetics, are unbiased and clear-thinking.
If you want facts then I suggest you check yours.
Which ones? The prices? Check away. As for windmills, you are faling for the simple error of confusing correlation with causation. Gasoline prices are 3 times what they were many years ago. As a result, we've seen shifts away from gas guzzlers and towards high-mpg vehicles. Is that because Dick Cheney is fighting for high fuel economy? No.
please share with us all that Clinton ...
You can always tell a Bush cultist - they take any critique of Bush and say, "What about Clinton?" Do you think murderers should go to a judge and say, "But what about this other guy who murdered?" Bush is president now. Let's address his policies. Feel free to provide data that Bush has funded alernative fuels etc more than all prior administrations combined, per your claim. You're the one who seems to think he's not biased and fact-based. Well, go ahead - present those facts.
Secondly, blaming the adminstration for the costs of natural gas and gasoline shows a complete lack of understanding of the commodity markets.
Uh huh. They just magically changed their behavior right after Bush took office. All the volatility of the past 5 years, and general high energy iniflation, is all just my imagination. It has no correlation with policies whatsoever. I mean, taking over a country and pulling off millions of barrels of oil from world markets does nothing to prices, right? Please give me some more of your learned insight.
Further, our lack of refining capacity, lack of new drilling
More Hannity-esque talking points. Please show me a correlation between price, refining capacity, and capacity utilization. Go ahead. Use some of those facts you love so much. As for drilling, please. The US has very little in the way of reserves relative to global reserves.
teh strength of the economy are the major reasons for the cost of fuels
That's funny. The economy under Clinton was much stronger, yet fuel prices went down. Try again, dear.
Unless you are talking 20 years ago, this is utter crap. The cost of natural gas for the week of 11/16/06 was $7.45 per MMBtu, the cost in 1994 was $6.41 per MMBtu.
Cherry pick much?
Wellhead price, Feb 2002 - 2.19
Wellhead price, Oct 2005 - 10.97
10.97/2.19 = 5.0
Look at that - my guess was actually precisely correct.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9190us3m.htm
The problem with this site is that if anyone disagrees or voices an opinion different from those ranting raving lunatics is attacked.
More ad hominem from you. Yawn.
Posted by: pizmo | Nov 26, 2006 4:30:11 PM
I just noticed you biffed your one little factual foray.
Unless you are talking 20 years ago, this is utter crap. The cost of natural gas for the week of 11/16/06 was $7.45 per MMBtu, the cost in 1994 was $6.41 per MMBtu.
The residential price was $6.41 in 1994. The latest data from the EIA has it at $16.12.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_sum_dcu_nus_m.htm
Perhaps you should learn the difference between spot prices and residential prices, before you get up on your high horse of "factuality" and "neutrality". Or don't.
Posted by: pizmo | Nov 26, 2006 4:36:05 PM
Pizmo said "Sure, pal. If I critique a certain party's leader's policies based on facts, then I'm "showing a political bias". You, on the other hand, with your ridiculous apologetics, are unbiased and clear-thinking."
The problem is that you are only critiquing based on selected facts, those you choose to see while ignoring the others. If you look at my first post, I take issue with many of the policies and failures of this administration but I also cite to some of its achievements. I am an independent and an independent thinker unlike yourself. I have found both fault and praise for every administration I have studied.
Pizmo said "As for windmills, you are faling for the simple error of confusing correlation with causation."
Actually, if you were involved in the wind industry as I am you would know that the surge in wind farm installations and dramatic increase in mega watts of production is a direct result of the tax incentives in place. Without those incentives the financials do not work.
Pizmo said "You can always tell a Bush cultist - they take any critique of Bush and say, "What about Clinton?" ….. Bush is president now. Let's address his policies."
Again, I am not a cultist for any president or party. I take issue with them all and see that they also all do some good. I am an independent and a centrist. I only raised the point earlier because those on the far left such as yourself only see the negative of those on the other side. You are blinded by hate and your ideology. I notice you did not even address the question as to what did Clinton do to further alternative energy and what did he fail to do. (the answer is he did both but just not as much of either as the current administration)
Pizmo said "They just magically changed their behavior right after Bush took office. All the volatility of the past 5 years, and general high energy iniflation, is all just my imagination. It has no correlation with policies whatsoever. I mean, taking over a country and pulling off millions of barrels of oil from world markets does nothing to prices, right?"
I think you should read your own post. To borrow a line from you, You are faling for the simple error of confusing correlation with causation.
First world oil production is currently higher than it was prior to the start of the Iraq war but so also is demand. Secondly, price volatility is controlled by the commodities markets. Yes they react to world events, politics and policies but there is little any administration can do to effect day to day prices short of moving us entirely away from a petroleum based economy. If I recall, it was Bush, not Clinton, Regan or anyone else who discussed our addition to oil and need to cure it. That being said, he has not done enough to move us away from that addition but neither has anyone else.
Pizmo said "More Hannity-esque talking points."
Typical, if someone does not entirely agree with your position trash attempt to trash them. I don’t have time to watch/listen to Hannity or anyone else be that CNN, Fox, MSNBC or Air America.
Pizmo said "Please show me a correlation between price, refining capacity, and capacity utilization."
Since you apparently need a lesson in basic workings of a market economy, commodities futures and the oil markets in general, I thought this would help.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/gasolinepricesprimer/eia1_2005primerM.html
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/features/falling_mogas.html
Pizmo said "As for drilling, please. The US has very little in the way of reserves relative to global reserves."
True to a point, especially with regard to oil but less so for natural gas. I must ask, Pizmo, are you advocating that we remain dependent on foreign sources for our fuels and not use/explore our own natural resources? I, on the otherhand, advocate need to move to alternative fuels/energy but also develop our own carbon based resources. Every little bit helps. At best, experts are predicting an ability to supply 25% of our petroleum needs for transport through bio-fuels, the rest needs to come from somewhere. Further, as I noted earlier, most of our oil reserves exist in ocean fields off the coasts of Florida, Alaska, California and a few other coastal states. Cuba recently signed leases with China to allow them to drill into our shared reserves off the Florida coast. So… I guess you must be right, there is no reason to drill off the Florida coast, as you note there are reserves are small compared to the rest of the world. Yeah right, that is why China is so interested. Hmmmm I guess you think we should just let them have all of it.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/data_publications/crude_oil_natural_gas_reserves/current/pdf/table01.pdf
Pizmo said "That's funny. The economy under Clinton was much stronger, yet fuel prices went down."
I will grant you that prices under Clinton were fairly stable. They did not go up or down dramatically. Additionally the U.S. economy under his administration was on par with the growth we are experiencing today. however to state that the economy then was dramatically better than it is now is a typical over exaggeration. However, your logic fails when you look at the world economy. Today, China, India and others have greatly increased their use of carbon based fuels. World oil demand has increased from 73,293 thousand barrels a day in 1997 to 83,987 thousand barrels a day in 2005. That is an increase of more than 10.5 million barrels a day. As a result of their growth, ours and the lack of energy efficiency legislation in this country (by either Clinton or Bush). Add to that political instability in the Middle East (yes, Bush can be faulted for some of that), Nigeria and Russia resulting in production interruptions as well as decreasing production from many existing fields in Norway, Britain, Mexico, the U.S. (due to aging fields and hurricane disruptions) and elsewhere and you get a convergence where demand approaches or exceeds supply and prices go up. Basic economics, but I am sure you can explain away market effects or blame them on a political party. I never blamed Carter for the run up in prices during his administration nor will I blame Bush for those during his. What I will do is blame every administration since Carter (Regan, the first Bush and Clinton) for not heeding the warning signs and taking steps to advance viable solutions. I will even take exception with the current administration for not doing more, but I will give them credit for doing more than those before them.
Pizmo said "Wellhead price, Feb 2002 - 2.19
Wellhead price, Oct 2005 - 10.97"
Now look who is cherry picking prices. First, it is November 2006 and we both know wellhead prices have come down significantly. Secondly, I cited the prices at which natural gas is sold for consumer use not the wellhead price. We are both aware that wellhead is irrelevant as that is not what the consumer pays. In fact, the wellhead price in 1994 was $1.85 but consumer pricing was still based off of the commodities traded price of $6.41. I won't even get into a value of money discussion but suffice it to say, try adjusting the price in 1994 for inflation and you will find it is greater than the cost today. The cost of natural gas for the week of 11/16/06 was $7.45 per MMBtu, the cost in 1994 was $6.41 per MMBtu. That is not cherry picking but simply the facts. Here is one more for you… going back to 1982, the consumer cost of natural gas was $5 or above. Of final note on this, see the economics lesson above.
As for your efforts to pin down my politics good luck, you are far off base. Unlike you, I am an independent and an independent thinker. I am left on the environment and center on most else but not radical on anything.
Posted by: emm | Nov 26, 2006 6:01:49 PM
"I am an indepedent. I just happen to ape right-wing radio talking points."
Yawn...
he cost of natural gas for the week of 11/16/06 was $7.45 per MMBtu, the cost in 1994 was $6.41 per MMBtu
Uh, no. You're confounding spot prices with residential prices, as I already pointed out. Your verbosity is only serving to attempt to cover that you can't even discern basic facts.
Posted by: pizmo | Nov 26, 2006 6:12:43 PM
I know the difference between spot and residential thank you. I also know the difference in how they are set now versus during regulation in the 80's and early 90's. Yes, I should have said spot pricing not residential and yes I do see I crossed the two up.
Regardless, the price is a result of market pressures and concerns. We are at a 5 year high in terms of Natural gas stored reserves. Prices are still high due to market concerns including the pending winter heating season.
Since you have been to the EIA site, maybe your economics will improve.
As for neutrality you should try it. You might find your objectivity also improves.
Posted by: emm | Nov 26, 2006 6:14:01 PM
I know the difference between spot and residential thank you.
Despite the fact that you confounded them once, was corrected about it, then repeated the same error.
As for neutrality you should try it. You might find your objectivity also improves.
Yes, you're very fair and balanced.
Posted by: pizmo | Nov 26, 2006 6:15:30 PM
emm: Just ignore pizmo ... he's just one of these guys that would have to be a lot more polite If he was in the same room with you.
Posted by: Neil | Nov 26, 2006 8:47:22 PM
he's just one of these guys that would have to be a lot more polite If he was in the same room with you.
Really, Neil? How does that work? So, we take this "new" poster named "emm" who comes on and gives the standard "I'm an independent and all you whackjobs don't know your facts but here's my regurgitation of foolish right-wing radio talking points" silliness, and we're supposed to respond to that how?
I mean, it's oh-so-polite to come in and say things like "demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge and showing a political bias" and "Since you have been to the EIA site, maybe your economics will improve. As for neutrality you should try it. You might find your objectivity also improves." That's so very polite.
I'm glad the new poster named "emm" has come here to share his independent, unbiased, fact-laden wisdom with us. Now I know that if we only drilled more, built a hundred more refineries, and slowed down the economy, then gas would be $1.25. It's true!
Punters...
Posted by: pizmo | Nov 26, 2006 8:56:35 PM
lol piz ... you do know how to bring out the worst in people. For the record IMHO Bush is about the worst thing that the U.S. has ever done to itself.
Posted by: Neil | Nov 26, 2006 9:57:39 PM
lol piz ... you do know how to bring out the worst in people.
Yes, I was responsible for this "new" poster starting his very first comment with "I always find it interesting to read all the extreme and often missinformed rhetoric."
That's such a "polite" first comment.
I don't have a lot of tolerance for the "look at me, I'm so informed and unbiased" game. If someone has a point to make, they should just make it, and demonstrate a strong grasp of the salient issues in a passably objective manner. Instead, what we see here is a tired old game of coming in and declaring how extreme and misinformed so many people are, then rattling off a succession of half-baked talking points with no basis in reality, followed by a series of blanket condemnations of other posters and extreme statements (eg, "complete lack of knowledge").
Most people here are very well-informed and state their cases well, and do so in a manner which respects diversity of outlooks. So where this "new" person would come up with their comments leads to the inevitable conclusions about their true intent.
Posted by: pizmo | Nov 26, 2006 10:15:45 PM
Emm:
US federal government does spend a lot of money on climate change programs – about 5.5 B in 2006, versus about 3.5 B spending of EU countries. But US money is spent not through established GW structures, so it does not count.
You probably would find interesting two articles about nuclear R&D – one how Clinton/Gor killed extremely promising reactor program, and about Japanese 2/3 share of Western World spending on nuclear reactors R&D.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html
http://www.uic.com.au/nip71.htm
Posted by: Andrey | Nov 27, 2006 12:57:05 AM
The problem that nails both reps and dems when they get serious about change is that a TON of jobs are hanging on plants and factries and such that are ALL running on end of life mode.
What this means is these places will NEVER be upgraded. They are barely maintained even. They are just a single snafu away from closing forever and being replaced by china or whoever.
And that is the problem. Neither side wants to trigger the mass dieoff of factries thats going to come anyway SOON. they dont want to be connected to it.
And we arnt the only ones facing this problem.
Now at leastif oil starts to skyrocket they can lay the blame on it and just MAYBE they can sell it as global warming and climate changes fault. But up until now they couldnt have done that.
Posted by: wintermane | Nov 27, 2006 2:50:31 AM
Emm -
you're right to point out that there has been quite a bit of energy research over the past 6 years. You're also right to point out that the US taxpayer, represented by the government (GOP President + GOP Congress), has footed a large chunk of that bill. Like oher nations, e.g. Denmark and Germany, the US does provide tax relief to wind farm operators to make the economics work.
What galls many of us on this site, evidently including pizmo, is the completely disproportionate amount spent on incentives to the oil & gas industry, which is quite profitable as it is; Wintermane's consistent ~10% sounds about right, but that is actually quite high for a cash cow industry. In absolute terms, profits are pretty staggering right now. Indirectly, government-funded hydrogen research also benefits mostly the oil & gas industry because steam reformation of methane would be the cheapest way to produce the fuel. The nuclear industry could experience a revival of its fortunes, even though there is as yet no repository for the radioactive waste the US already has (due only in part to Nevada NIMBYs). Finally, let's not forget King Coal's earmarks for bogus synfuel (as opposed to CTL).
The Bush administration has paid attention to energy security, that's why there are troops in Afghanistan and Iraq (price tag so far: a staggering $500 billion). Political instability in that region threatens global oil & gas supplies and hence, the US economy. If the administration had spent even half as much on energy efficiency and building up renewables as it already has on prosecuting these wars, there would be no concept of an "axis of evil", the price of oil would now be much lower and perhaps no country in the Middle East (other than Israel) would be seeking nuclear technology today.
Moreover, by shifting taxes away from wealth generation and toward asset consumption (a conservative concept if ever there was one), the administration could have started the process of paying for this massive shift in energy policy. Instead, it and Congress have presided over the largest budget deficits in US history, a problem that may well come home to roost before long.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Nov 27, 2006 6:09:58 AM
Piz, you then showed him wrong with an emotional, label tagging,cherry picking{using post katrina gas price to boost your ng argument}tirade.
Do you think Virginia,West Virginia dems are going to flush jobs for their costituents by nixing coal?They will embrace futuregen becuse coal will reelect them.
We have got to see polticians thru something other than the left right prism to push for change. when we line up for cnn vs fox fisticuffs the pols are controlling us.
I wish we could term limit both parties.Our political system is at war with itself.We need to send a message that 1994 and 2006 elections show that we want results based government and will throw either party out if they dont deliver.
Posted by: earl | Nov 27, 2006 6:18:12 AM
One of the oldest plays in the book is token efforts at co-optation. What matters is the main thrust of policy and who really gets the majority of benefits.
Posted by: pizmo | Nov 27, 2006 8:22:22 AM
Rafael:
Practically every country subsidizes major energy production/infrastructure. That’s what governments just do. For example, Germany spent 3.5 B Euro in 2002 for domestic coal production subsidies. European Environment Agency figures in 2004 gave indicative estimates of total energy subsidies in the EU-15 for 2001: solid fuel (coal) EUR 13.0, oil & gas EUR 8.7, nuclear EUR 2.2, renewables EUR 5.3 billion.
http://www.uic.com.au/nip71.htm
Actually, I do not find this particularly wrong per se.
BTW, staggering cost of Iraqi war indicates clearly that it is not entirely about oil. For 500 B one could buy staggering amount of oil, isn’t it? Or do you think that my Canadian troops (Canada is major net oil exporter) are sacrificing their lives in Afghanistan to steal non-existed Afghan oil? Or probably they just trying to control potential competitor in growing of recreational drugs?
And sure thing, Middle East Islamic tyrannies are way more peaceful than US or Canada democracies.
Posted by: Andrey | Nov 27, 2006 10:46:52 AM
BTW, staggering cost of Iraqi war indicates clearly that it is not entirely about oil. For 500 B one could buy staggering amount of oil, isn’t it?
The beneficiaries aren't spending their own money, now are they?
Or do you think that my Canadian troops (Canada is major net oil exporter) are sacrificing their lives in Afghanistan to steal non-existed Afghan oil?
And there you confound leadership with rank-and-file.
And sure thing, Middle East Islamic tyrannies are way more peaceful than US or Canada democracies.
And there's moral relativism - something right-wingers used to lambast as being a core element of liberal degeneracy and the downfall of western civilization.
So your answer to "Middle East Islamic tyrannies" is to radically boost the price level of a commodity which makes them rich? Great strategy.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/11/26/MNG8HMK6FM1.DTL
Posted by: pizmo | Nov 27, 2006 11:02:31 AM
Of the 500 billion price tag how much is about iraq and how much is about the military and about the il and about preping for when oil runs low and wars break out and how much is squilled away in hidden projects and how much overtly got put inot projects only having made up connections to iraq and how much went to feather politicians asses on all sides with fat pork projects to build stuff and hire people who vote for one side or the other..
Was iraq important at all or was it just convenent?
Posted by: wintermane | Nov 27, 2006 1:45:15 PM
Of the 500 billion price tag how much is about iraq
CBO has it at around $300 billion through September of this year.
http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/75xx/doc7506/GWOT_Tables_2006_08.pdf
That's likely a conservative estimate, since that's only operational expenses.
Posted by: pizmo | Nov 27, 2006 3:36:14 PM
I like conspiracy theories, too. They make me feel better about the fact that some people make/have more money than me. Its not my fault, its all part of a vast Haliburton/Zionist/Left Wing/Neocon/Illuminati/Freemason conspiracy. Or maybe just the colored folk.
Posted by: Bob Bastard | Nov 27, 2006 5:33:42 PM
Ah, the inevitable meltdown. Cute.
Posted by: pizmo | Nov 27, 2006 7:30:23 PM
Did you really expect anything else from the Chicken Little Wacko crowd. It is fun to stop by occasionally and listen to their psychotic rants.
Posted by: nemo | Nov 28, 2006 7:24:06 AM
Name changing now? How original.
I'm sure you "stop by occasionally" to the tune of once every 10 minutes.
Posted by: pizmo | Nov 28, 2006 8:07:39 AM
How sick is this? Every study/report I hear regarding CO2 emissions further convinces me that the only way to counter our environmental issues is through population control laws. Who knows what the true carrying capacity of this Earth is, but sustaining a world of 1 billion pople vs 10 billion seems a lot more feasible to me. I see, let's just cull 5 billion people so that the remaining 1 billion can have some comfort. And that over CO2?
How about excessively taxing people that choose to have more than one child? Yeah! Let's tax those poor Africans, Indians and Chinese into oblivion. Or are we only going to tax those evil rich people, whose well-educated children might contribute to future solutions?
Surely, someone will twist this message into something it is not... I am sorry Mr. Mao/Lenin, how unkind of me. Your message was what again?
...but the fact is one way to reduce energy demands is to reduce consumption. I see: the only way to "reduce consumption" is to get rid of people?
Earth could not support 6 billion hunter-gatherers, but so far it seems to support our (somewhat) technologically advanced society. A society that cleans its wastewater, gets rid of its waste, grows the food it needs, etc. The system is not perfect, but it works. Increasing earth's population to 10 billion means facing some new challenges and finding better ways of doing things. In other words, business as usual...
But hey, if you want to go live in the caves, be my guest...
Posted by: An Engineer | Nov 28, 2006 4:00:19 PM
I see, let's just cull 5 billion people so that the remaining 1 billion can have some comfort. And that over CO2?
Oh, you see it perfectly. He's obviously proposing mass murder, not decreased procreation. Great start.
Yeah! Let's tax those poor Africans, Indians and Chinese into oblivion. Or are we only going to tax those evil rich people, whose well-educated children might contribute to future solutions?
All rich people have well-educated people who contribute to future solutions? Or is that another big fat strawman?
I am sorry Mr. Mao/Lenin, how unkind of me. Your message was what again?
Commie Card - lovely. Very high-level. Thanks for proving his point about twisting his words to serve some silly desire to paint him as a murderous communist tyrant.
I see: the only way to "reduce consumption" is to get rid of people?
He didn't say that. The strawmen keep piling up.
Earth could not support 6 billion hunter-gatherers, but so far it seems to support our (somewhat) technologically advanced society.
The operative word there being "seems".
A society that cleans its wastewater, gets rid of its waste, grows the food it needs, etc.
We get rid of our waste? Everyone has clean water and sanitation? No one goes without food? You must be from the future, because that's not the case in Present Earth.
The system is not perfect, but it works.
Lots of things "work". Communism "works". What matters are qualitative things that your little Strawman Festival isn't accounting for.
Increasing earth's population to 10 billion means facing some new challenges and finding better ways of doing things. In other words, business as usual...
Why not shoot for 3 trillion humans while we're at it? Using your logic, we should never attempt to deal with our numbers, since we can, purely based on faith, deal with it. It'll "work".
But hey, if you want to go live in the caves, be my guest...
If there were 1 billion humans on the planet, they'd all live in caves? Add another strawman to the pile.
Posted by: pizmo | Nov 28, 2006 4:19:34 PM
I see: the only way to "reduce consumption" is to get rid of people?
- He didn't say that. The strawmen keep piling up.
He implied it. And by harping on population control, he confirmed that that was his line of thinking.
Earth could not support 6 billion hunter-gatherers, but so far it seems to support our (somewhat) technologically advanced society.
- The operative word there being "seems".
Granted. But then, Mr. Rumsfeld, we don't know the unknowable...
A society that cleans its wastewater, gets rid of its waste, grows the food it needs, etc.
- We get rid of our waste? Everyone has clean water and sanitation? No one goes without food? You must be from the future, because that's not the case in Present Earth.
As I said The system is not perfect, but it works. Where problems exist are mostly of a political nature, as opposed to a technological nature. Get rid of the dictators (and commies) and things work pretty well...
The system is not perfect, but it works.
- Lots of things "work". Communism "works". What matters are qualitative things that your little Strawman Festival isn't accounting for.
Communism works? Where would that be? And for how long?
Increasing earth's population to 10 billion means facing some new challenges and finding better ways of doing things. In other words, business as usual...
- Why not shoot for 3 trillion humans while we're at it? Using your logic, we should never attempt to deal with our numbers, since we can, purely based on faith, deal with it. It'll "work".
Oh, it will get to 3 trillion, eventually. My faith is based on the history of technological innovation, and the like. For example: "In the 1870s engineers warned Queen Victoria that, if London’s population grew beyond four million, transport-derived pollutants – horse manure - would overwhelm the city. The population did pass four million in Victoria’s lifetime, and the city didn’t disappear under a tidal wave of steaming dung, although it must have smelt like it was going to at times." Go on, read the whole thing. The point being that the environment was saved by a little technological advancement known as the internal combustion engine. Imagine that, ICE saved the environment! Could a new technology do it again? Hint: There is lots of money to be made by the inventor who gets it right. (Ladies and) Gentlemen, sharpen our pencils!
But hey, if you want to go live in the caves, be my guest...
- If there were 1 billion humans on the planet, they'd all live in caves? Add another strawman to the pile.
The caves are for believers in PeakOil and strawmen only...
Posted by: An Engineer | Nov 29, 2006 3:56:38 PM
Here's my favorite: It's it just sad how Big Oil and Detroit got together to keep us from having the carburetor that runs on water or give 100+mpg. Those damn conspirators.
Posted by: nemo | Nov 29, 2006 7:57:48 PM
