Hello Murdoch >On Wed, 29 May 2002 17:48:19 +0900, you wrote: > > >Murdoch wrote: > > > > >>As to Kerry, he's neither going away, nor is his staff completely > >>incompetent to some of these battles (I guess they'd qualify as > >>researchers... quasi-reporters... in your scenario > > > >Um, no, I think not, not quasi-reporters. But never mind. He has his > >research staff. Anyway, from what you said, they lost the battle > >against the diesel-bashers, eh? > >Only temporarily.
That remains to be seen. >What I am attempting to point out to you is that >this was a very major guy making an unprecedented foray into not only >ripping to shreds Mr. Bush's ridiculous energy proposals but also >suggesting that we should consider diesel. Yes, you did manage to get that point across, in your first post, and it was acknowledged. I'm not sure my point got across though, that it's part of a broader issue that needs to be addressed. There are other powerful people, major guys, pushing diesel in the US, but it's not making a lot of difference, or not that one can see. > >Or was it quite that way? > >Yes, it was. > > >In "Why Cafe Failed Fuel Conservation, An > >open letter to Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.)" in The Washington Post on > >March 18, 2002, Warren Brown said: "It's time for you and your > >supporters to end your knee-jerk opposition to all things diesel. > >Stop confusing politics with science." > >http://www.dieselforum.org/inthenews/washpost_031802.html > >I saw the quote on the quotes page, and I let it go because the page >was excellent and research revealed little. But having read the >article, I am going to assume that Mr. Brown simply didn't mind >lumping Mr. Kerry in with his environmentalist allies... assuming Mr. >Kerry's position on diesel without knowing it. Mr. Kerry *did* state >that he thought we should consider the advantages that diesel has to >offer us (my words) and then he was later forced to backpedal. But >his stance did not bear any resemblance, that I know of, to the stance >that Mr. Brown implies. > > > > >http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/story/2090960p-2423051c.html > >The Sacramento Bee, April 7, 2002 > >Diesel fuel would slash energy use and greenhouse gas > > > >>)...but you're > >>probably right that he's taken more heat than he might want and will > >>take some more for his stance in diesel (he did point out when he was > >>asked to defend his stance.... as to the cleaner nature of Euro > >>Diesel). > > > >Or will change his stance on diesel. > >You have assumed too much based on one third-handed reference by one >journalist. No, I wrote that comment before I'd checked out what Warren Brown had said (I only wrote half a reply and had to leave the rest for later), and I said something similar in a previous post, before Brown ever came up. However, the rest of Brown's comments seem rather well-founded. Brown generally knows his stuff, this wasn't a quick piece cobbled up in haste by a reporter new to the beat doing a superficial pull-together from headlines found in a library search and getting it all wrong. It seems very unlikely that Brown didn't know Kerry's stance, in such a well-publicised event only a short time earlier. I'd guess from that article that he knows rather a lot about Kerry. Anyway Kerry's pro-diesel comments were made off the cuff, in answer to a reporter's question, they don't seem to have been part of his proposal. I'd be inclined to dig a bit deeper into Kerry's record to see whether there's any substance to what Brown says. What was his record on diesels prior to this statement? There are 37 articles in my library about Kerry and energy that don't mention diesel at all, and only two that do, referred to yesterday - an ill-considered remark, rapidly withdrawn. Ill-considered in that, although he was right, he wasn't prepared for the consequences and had to change his tune. I think the Euro-diesel bit you refer to was in the original comment, not the retraction. He seemed to back off from diesels altogether. If Kerry does have a record of promoting diesels for fuel economy and energy efficiency, it's not a very visible one. If he doesn't, then why not? Because of his friends at the Sierra Club, as Brown says? Kerry's publicity material says: "Americans are by far the least energy-efficient people in the industrialized world, primarily due to the heavy reliance on personal automobiles." If that's what he thinks then he should promote diesels, and especially clean diesel fuel, but it seems that except for this one remark he doesn't do that. He himself seems to talk more often of reducing US dependence on foreign oil, but that's a different matter. I don't have any sympathy for that view - the US should reduce it's dependence on oil, full-stop. He should promote energy efficiency for its own sake. I think Brown's right. I doubt Kerry will be pushing diesels again any time soon. > >>His energy policy positions, in general, reflected a great deal of > >>thought and planning and my first reading of them them was a > >>stand-up-and-cheer moment for me, with the possible exception of his > >>inflexible stance on ANWR where he made clear that he would > >>fillibuster any ANWR drilling (I know, I'm not supposed to allow for > >>at least discussing ANWR drilling but I do). > > > >Sorry, I don't understand the bit in brackets, what aren't you >supposed to do? > > > >Keith > >I'm not supposed to raise the idea that drilling in ANWR might be >something we'd want to consider. Why not? I mean why aren't you supposed to do that? There's no PC here, you can say what you like. Anyway, the whole subject of the ANWR is so fraught with spin and counter-spin by now I rather doubt anyone knows t'other from which anymore. The U.S. Geological Survey just increased its estimate of the oil in the nearby National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska by more than four times all of a sudden, and the political timing of that would seem to deserve some examination. Does anyone really know how much oil is there? The estimates of the number of jobs ANWR drilling would create was just spin, with the more likely number put at only 8% of the 700,000+ jobs promised by Gale Norton et al, based on a 12-year-old oil industry study that's been heavily criticised. The 8% and "less than 10%" come from studies by the opposing camp. Is there a disinterested study? Whatever, oil drilling is not a big job spinner. Alternative energy and energy efficiency are big job spinners. I don't understand the national security angle at all. Nor does Dean Baker: >This article discusses the importance of the >Arctic Natural Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) as one of >the country's few relatively untouched regions. >At one point it presents an argument by >proponents of oil drilling: that the oil which >comes out of ANWR will enhance national security >by reducing the nation's dependence on foreign >oil. This is a peculiar argument, since it is >only true as long as the oil is in the ground. > >At present, and in almost any foreseeable future >scenario, the U.S. can buy all the oil it chooses >to buy on world markets. If it drains the oil >from ANWR during a period in which oil is readily >available, then it has eliminated a reserve that >may be important at some point when oil is not >available. The national security argument on ANWR >would seem to be that the oil should be left >there, to protect against the possibility that >the U.S. will be unable to get foreign oil at >some future date. > >From Economic Reporting Review, 2/27/01 >By Dean Baker If drilling went ahead, and say Japan decided to buy the entire production, or China or Saudi Arabia, I don't think there's anything the US could do to stop that. Just another handout for Big Oil, and sod the cost, seems to me. Regards Keith ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Buy Stock for $4 and no minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/orkH0C/n97DAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
