In the meantime how are you going to power the research that you need to do? All the electricity that is used to run the electronics and computers and other equipment has to come from somewhere.
What you need is more people like T Boone Pickett who invests in oil but also invests in alternate energy sources. A lot of the research on the alternate sources is being done by the oil companies but our betters tax their funds as windfall profits and then complain when the alternate sources are not provided. Cause, effect?? RichardForbes wrote: > I never suggested that it should not. Particularly with the current > state of the economy. That would create good jobs and reduce fuel > costs. But, the fact is that the oil will run out. Nobody can say > when, but God help us all if we have not transitioned to alternatives > as that inevitible day approaches. > > On Jun 28, 10:40 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Richard, >> >> I too have been vocal regarding the same issues that you are espousing, with >> one major difference. I think that a comprehensive energy plan must include >> the opening of our coastline and areas for drilling where there is >> hydrocarbons. We need a comprehensive energy plan that encompasses not >> only the need for more fossil fuels, but as you put it, an acceleration of >> alternative energy sources, (in my mind, I still believe that hydrogen is >> the answer); but there should be no government restrictions. The Federal >> government should only be involved in the stewardship of finding alternative >> resources. >> >> Yes, it is all in the name of "National Security". >> >> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 12:23 PM, RichardForbes < >> >> >> >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>> I have long argued that the simple fact is that fossil fuel is not a >>> renewable resource and that our dependence on it has created a >>> significant national security issue. Pumping it faster will buy time, >>> but not solve the problem. Pumping it slower creates other immediate >>> concerns and does not solve the problem. Hybrids are a good option, >>> but they are not as beneficial as some think. I am for doing "all of >>> the above" in a policy way. Every option that we eliminate makes it >>> harder to obtain a comprehensive energy policy that will eliminate our >>> fossil fuel fascination. There are hundreds of ways to reduce our >>> fossil fuel consumption and most of them would take no federal program >>> at all. That said, I would gladly eliminate hundreds of existing >>> programs. projects and agencies and funnel that money into a NASA-like >>> program focused on accelerating the development and deployment of >>> alternative energy and renewable energy technologies. Because I view >>> it as a matter of national security, I am willing in this case to >>> accept the government involvement and to grease the skids at the >>> development level. >>> >>> On Jun 28, 10:09 am, Frederick The Moderate >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Dick: >>>> >>>> Why post this and not add any of your own insights or opinions? >>>> In any case, although I would LOVE to see us off oil and set free from >>>> the Middle East, I don't see it as a function of government to >>>> regulate this, this way. I see a need for the EPA, FTC etc... (I bet >>>> Richard doesn't!) but their role is to keep us safe. This seems more >>>> oriented toward commercial enterprise than health and welfare of the >>>> citizens. >>>> >>>> On Jun 27, 10:35 am, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> [Get Copyright Permissions] >>>>> <http://license.icopyright.net/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> E-Mail >>>>> <http://license.icopyright.net/g1/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> | Print >>>>> <http://license.icopyright.net/g2/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> | Save >>>>> <http://license.icopyright.net/s13/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> | Post >>>>> <http://license.icopyright.net/g3/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> | Get >>>>> >>> Photos >>> >>>>> <http://license.icopyright.net/g5/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> | Get >>>>> Reprints <http://license.icopyright.net/s17/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> | >>>>> Reuse Options <http://license.icopyright.net/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> >>>>> >>>>> Jun 27, 11:12 AM EDT >>>>> >>>>> Winners and losers emerge in climate bill >>>>> >>>>> By CHRIS KAHN >>>>> AP Energy Writer >>>>> >>>>> NEW YORK (AP) -- In addition to raising energy prices, the climate >>>>> legislation that's winding through Congress would create a parallel >>>>> financial system with a carbon-based currency. >>>>> >>>>> The House on Friday narrowly passed landmark legislation meant to curb >>>>> greenhouse gas emissions and create an energy-efficient economy, voting >>>>> 219-212. President Barack Obama on Saturday urged senators to follow >>>>> >>> suit. >>> >>>>> Everyone from small farmers to nuclear energy companies would be forced >>>>> to re-evaluate their place in the new order. Power plants, factories >>>>> >>> and >>> >>>>> refineries would feel the first impact if the federal government moves >>>>> ahead with plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent from >>>>> >>> 2005 >>> >>>>> levels by 2020 and by about 80 percent near the end of the century. >>>>> >>>>> The sharply debated bill's fate is unclear in the Senate. A major >>>>> struggle is expected with 60 votes needed to overcome a certain >>>>> Republican filibuster. >>>>> >>>>> How much it will affect other industries is still a matter of intense >>>>> debate, though the primary winners and losers are already emerging. >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> >>>>> The Winners: >>>>> >>>>> Solar, wind, geothermal and other renewable energy companies, including >>>>> nuclear, are some of the obvious winners in a carbon economy. >>>>> >>>>> In addition to the billions of federal stimulus dollars they expect to >>>>> receive, those industries can expect to see a huge boost in investment >>>>> as utilities and power companies are forced to cut their carbon >>>>> emissions. Companies like Florida Power & Light Co., Arizona Public >>>>> Service, Southern California Edison and others are already investing in >>>>> solar farms and other renewable energy projects, and they'll likely >>>>> spend even more to increase the mix of carbon-neutral energy sources. >>>>> >>>>> Farmers also will find new ways to make money in a carbon economy. >>>>> Carbon consultants like the International Carbon Bank & Exchange in >>>>> Florida see huge potential in agriculture for managing carbon >>>>> >>> emissions. >>> >>>>> Farmers that till their soil differently or apply new environmental >>>>> techniques can get money by cooperating with a polluter as a carbon >>>>> "offset." >>>>> >>>>> Owners of large tracts of forest land also will get a lot of interest >>>>> from the business community. Like farmers, environmental experts see >>>>> them as a huge player in the carbon economy because of their natural >>>>> ability to absorb carbon. >>>>> >>>>> Louis Blumberg, director of climate change for the Nature Conservancy's >>>>> California chapter, envisions a system in which forest owners could >>>>> >>> make >>> >>>>> money simply by signing an agreement to cut down fewer trees for >>>>> >>> lumber. >>> >>>>> The Nature Conservancy did just that last year with the Conservation >>>>> Fund, a nonprofit agency that owns about 24,000 acres of redwood and >>>>> douglas fir forest northwest of San Francisco. The groups changed the >>>>> logging schedule on the property, and the fund expects to receive about >>>>> $2 million from Pacific Gas and Electric, which participates in a >>>>> regional climate initiative similar to the one that the Waxman-Markey >>>>> bill would create around the country. >>>>> >>>>> "This is really a model of what can happen," Blumberg said. "Property >>>>> owners everywhere want to figure out a way to be part of this." >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> >>>>> The Losers: >>>>> >>>>> Anyone who pays an electric bill would likely feel the impact of >>>>> >>> climate >>> >>>>> legislation. Utilities will try to raise rates as they invest in >>>>> cleaner-yet-more-expensive energy sources. Some have already announced >>>>> plans to do so. Petroleum companies also may try to import more of >>>>> >>> their >>> >>>>> refined gas and heating oil from countries with no carbon law, which >>>>> will raise costs. >>>>> >>>>> The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the Environmental >>>>> Protection Agency both issued estimates of how the climate bill would >>>>> affect energy costs. >>>>> >>>>> The CBO estimated the cost at $175 a year for the average household. >>>>> >>> The >>> >>>>> EPA forecasts $80 to $110 a year. >>>>> >>>>> The American Petroleum Institute disputed both estimates, saying the >>>>> bill could cost the average household up to $3,300 by 2020. >>>>> >>>>> "That is more than a few postage stamps," API President Jack Gerard >>>>> >>> said >>> >>>>> in a slap at Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass. Markey has compared new energy >>>>> costs to a postage stamp per day. >>>>> >>>>> API has tried to paint the bill as a job killer that would choke off >>>>> efforts to pull the economy out of recession. >>>>> >>>>> "While we support creating new jobs, the legislation offers an >>>>> unnecessary and false choice of eliminating good jobs in the oil and >>>>> natural gas industry to create green jobs," Gerard said. >>>>> >>>>> Oil and gas companies have spent record amounts of money lobbying >>>>> Congress recently as they try to blunt the impact of the bill. >>>>> >>>>> Refiners, in particular, say the inherent costs in the legislation >>>>> >>> could >>> >>>>> shift some fuel production outside the U.S., where refiners would not >>>>> >>> be >>> >>>>> bound by its provisions. >>>>> >>>>> The National Petrochemical & Refiners Association also says the >>>>> legislation hurts them two different ways, by capping emissions from >>>>> refineries as well as emissions from the fuels they produce. But >>>>> refiners say they are not recieving enough credits. >>>>> >>>>> The association says the legislation could cost U.S. refiners as much >>>>> >>> as >>> >>>>> $58 billion a year. >>>>> >>>>> Coal miners also are worried because it might cut into demand for coal, >>>>> which is loaded with carbon. Mining also uses a lot of energy, so the >>>>> rise in energy costs would hurt their bottom line. >>>>> >>>>> The country gets about half of its electricity from coal. Some >>>>> >>> utilities >>> >>>>> that rely on coal to generate much of their electricity worried about >>>>> initial versions of the legislation that they said would lead to >>>>> skyrocketing rates. The current version will mean much smaller >>>>> increases, they said. >>>>> >>>>> Columbus, Ohio-based American Electric Power said the legislation will >>>>> send rates about 25 percent higher by 2015; the initial version would >>>>> have meant rate hikes of 65 percent to 75 percent. >>>>> >>>>> Another big utility that relies on coal, Charlotte, N.C.-based Duke >>>>> Energy, said the legislation creates >>>>> >> ... >> >> read more ยป- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
