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 ?

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

Nothing really new under the sun.

Your cherrypicking and paranoia? Yes, they are consistent - I'll give you that.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?