Entry details

Chirol
Author

Chirol

Date

August 29th, 2006

Tags

,

Comments

25 Comments so far.
Add yours.

The Green Old Party

From Time.com

Previewing the final quarter of Bush’s presidency, officials disclosed to TIME that the Administration is formulating a huge energy initiative designed to “change the whole nature of the discussion” and challenge the G.O.P., Democrats, the oil and electricity industries, and environmentalists. An adviser said Bush’s views about global warming have evolved. “Only Nixon could go to China, and only Bush and Cheney—two oilmen—can bring all these parties kicking and screaming to the table,” the adviser said.

Whatever the coming months hold, Bush advisers said they could safely predict there would be no more Dr. Phil—speak. The President doesn’t fret in private, they say, so he won’t in public. A friend said Bush hopes his ultimate legacy will be that he engaged the war on terrorism and started a multigenerational process of winning it, the way Harry Truman began winning the cold war. No one remembers Harry Truman ruminating about the nation’s temperament.

Another interesting bit. As Bush slowly ups the rhetoric. First we were addicted to oil and now Bush and the so-called Grand Oil Party are going to finally start America on the road to energy efficiency. Energy independence is a popular buzzword among political amatuers and leftists that is both unrealistic and ridiculous. Efficiency, however, creates a more resiliant country, positively impacting the environment, national security, our war machine, and so on and so forth. It’s high time to do so and oh yeah, what will this leave the Democrats with?

SIDENOTE: Curzon is still biking around northern Japan and I’m still at home in America visiting friends and family and roadtripping all about. Posting will remain light. Bear with us. Curzon and I will both be back to our regular posting schedule in about two weeks.

Comments to this entry

Dan tdaxp
August 29, 2006
11:10 pm
Very good news. It looks like our President has been reading tdaxp ;-)
jon
August 30, 2006
2:49 pm
I hope he really does something, not some band aid that makes people feel better.

Dan,

I read your posts about the $5 gas tax and evenly distributed rebates for heads of households. I think it is a very interesting idea. Two things though, I think it is the sort of thing that should be phased in over 2 or 3 years, to give people a chance to adjust to the new realities. I know many families that bought gas guzzlers three or four years ago, because they made a rational decision that the large refunds and low interest rates on those vehicles offset the increased gasoline usage.
Second, the people that have to drive the furthest tend to be poorer and have less income to spend on transit. This could affect them unfairly. Quite often they had no choice but to move to the outer reaches of suburbia, if they wanted to offer their children any sort of comfortable home life. More often it is single wealthier people that close to the economic cores of the country.
LWong
August 30, 2006
6:43 pm
"..what will this leave the Democrats with?"
Welcome to the party.
Better late than never.
Al Gore was right. Al Gore IS right.

The fact that the cost of Oil addiction is too high to sustain has been obvious to all, including diehard oilheads with vested interests for a long time.

What prompted the public admission all is not well?
Better technology, the alternatives getting cheaper, certainly.

But the real reason for the PULIBC about face is the inevitable realization that it is no longer possible, militarily, to control oil supplies with resurgent Russia, rising China, and radicalized nuclear Islam. Not with Europe reluctant and South America increasingly independent.

The failing "war on terror" in Iraq is the biggest in-you-face proof. Even if "democracy" holds, the Shiites majority government will be not be the puppet regime. The wet-dream of the neo-cons and oilmen has turned out to be quite a nightmare.

Like nicotine addiction, the evidence that oil addition is bad for you has been overwhelming and undeniable. The oilmen are just recognizing belatedly that it is unspinnable and unsalable to the voters as well.
marquer
August 30, 2006
10:29 pm
Consider that the only significant energy reform proposal out of this Administration so far has been to further flog the dead horse of ethanol as a motor vehicle fuel.

Hmmmm, let's see. Agricultural specialists and climatologists are warning that we could see North American crop yields plummet in the next decade due to increasingly adverse growing conditions. What to do, what to do. Ah! I've got it! Let's bet the nation's energy security on Midwestern corn!

And this at a time when America last year, for the first time in living memory, imported more food than it exported. Brilliant plan. Just brilliant.

I am more fond of eating than I am of driving. That's just a personal preference, you understand.
snow
August 31, 2006
12:58 am
It will be interesting to see what they actually plan to do. Nothing's going to replace oil in the foreseeable future, but reducing dependence on it would be a good thing. With oil prices high, a whole range of alternatives are being ramped up, but in order to take full advantage, much of the infrastructure must be put in place. This has long been a sticking point, with no new oil refineries, nuclear plants and other power plants having been built over a long time.

Will Americans allow the building of infrastructure to accomodate alternate sources of energy, such as wind farms, LNG terminals and other production facilities (eg. coal to liquid), etc.? Free marketers are working full steam ahead to develop alternatives and to find alternative sources of oil, but to move from a heavily oil dependent nation to otherwise will take huge investment and strong political will. Will politicians of any stripe have that will in the future? I wouldn't count on it. The not-in-my-backyard syndrome will trump the will of most politicians of either party.

Nonetheless, it's good that they are trying to do something. Let's hope that the US is on the way to greater independence as it's critical for the future security of the country.
Dr. Alfred Russel Wallace
August 31, 2006
1:38 am
Alas we all seem to expect someone else to do something - its really up to us. We each need to halve our energy consumption for a start- but will we try???
snow
August 31, 2006
2:35 am
Dr. Wallace, halving our consumption isn't realistic, but we need to start somewhere. Reducing while finding alternative sources of oil (hopefully in friendlier, less politically sensitive countries) and increasing use of alternatives is a good beginning.
alec
August 31, 2006
3:51 am
We all know what we're going to be doing: shelling out 2 to 3 dollars per gallon to Exxon for corn-syrup, biodiesel, ethenol, or whatever renewable energy source is convinient for the vested interests in the energy game.
jon
August 31, 2006
1:30 pm
At the very least for the short term, there are proven technologies that can at least curb the growth of our energy demands. Plug in hybrids to reduce our oil usage, increased energy efficiency in our homes and offices. People still make fun of Jimmy Carter fro his "sweater" speech, but in many ways he helped create the explosiono f productivity in the 80's and 90's. We now can do much more with the same amount of energy than we did in the mid-1970's. A home that is built to energy star guidelines uses app. 30% less energy than one that is built just to code. One of the main reasons this does not happen with more houses is because the contractors that build them do not have any incentive to do so. We need to start somewhere. We should pick the low hanging fruit that is all around us while we are figuring out how to build the ladder to reach true alternative energy.
J.Kende
August 31, 2006
2:51 pm
I guess I'll be the one to point out that our high levels of energy use are not frivolous, but rather are one large contributing factor in significant productivity increases. Look around you... The standard of living in this nation has been enhanced dramatically on the whole over the last few decades. Yes, that is coupled with explosive increases in demand for energy. The key to advancing that trend even further is not to curb our consumption, but rather to diversify our energy sources and advance the technology in ways that lead to plentiful cheap energy.

Yes, one small part of that is consuming energy more efficiently by doing simple things like replacing old products with newer, better models. Say for example replacing your ancient, constantly needing replacement light bulbs with new, inexpensive, high quality CFL swirls.... Or to continue increasing the incentives for transitioning to hybrid and flex fuel vehicles. But these are ways of getting more bang out of our energy buck. A sound policy for profit at any time. To suggest we should cut back on our use of air conditioning and cars and our travelling collection of the Best Buy display rack is nothing but a bunch of utopian sounding inefficient nonsense. Regression will get us nowhere good.

There is a pretty standard list of energy choices that will get us somewhere good, fast:

* Hybrid/Flex Fuel Vehicles
* Replacing old lightbulbs with CFL swirls ($3 a piece at Walmart, and they last 7-10 years -- same luminescent quality or better as traditional bulbs)
* Oil source diversification (Oil shale + tar sands + private exploration in friendly waters)
* Clean coal advances
* Grid modernization
* Pebble bed nuclear + hydrogen production
* Ethanol/biofuels
* Continued invesment in advances in wind, solar, and other currently marginal alternatives.

We can go ahead and worry that the sky is falling, that crop yields will plummet despite continuing breathroughs in bio-sciences all around, and that the only way to solve our problems is to commit economic and lifestyle suicide through programs like Kyoto or browbeating of individuals on how the moral choice is to drastically limit the work we use our energy for... Or we can recognize this as mostly a technological problem that is best solved through increased generation and more efficient distribution of energy from a diverse array of sources.

I put my money where my mouth is and have already replaced all of the old bulbs I can with CFL's. How about the doomsayers here?
snow
August 31, 2006
3:32 pm
Thank you, J. Kende. Nicely put. That's the spirit. We should be moving forward with an optimistic and positive attitude while searching for solutions. Solutions are being found, alternatives are being developed. And capitalists are leading the way.

The Al Gore approach of shuttering industries, taking cold showers (sorry, no more showers, just sponge baths), and traveling by horse and buggy won't work in the long run. (ok, I'm exaggerating).
alec
August 31, 2006
5:46 pm
PS. Chirol, you know what this will leave the Democratic party -- new and creative ways to lose elections.
Prose Before Hos » Tony Blair Ripped Me Off (with a dime bag)
August 31, 2006
5:53 pm
[...] And in the joke of the day, “Previewing the final quarter of Bush's presidency, officials disclosed to TIME that the Administration is formulating a huge energy initiative designed to "change the whole nature of the discussion"Â? and challenge the G.O.P., Democrats, the oil and electricity industries, and environmentalists. An adviser said Bush's views about global warming have evolved. "Only Nixon could go to China, and only Bush and Cheney"”?two oilmen"”?can bring all these parties kicking and screaming to the table,"Â? the adviser said.” Sorry guys, Bush’s views about global warming aren’t ‘evolved’, they’re created. And that’s a lifetime of creation and decision, so don’t think about bringing up ‘facts’. [...]
MF
September 1, 2006
4:29 am
snow, why is halving the consumption "not realistic"? In a market economy, if prices double, it would seem logical that consumption would decrease. If you had two cars, and decide to get rid of one, and then replace the first one in a couple of years with a much more efficient one, you would soon be down by 50%. What people would have to do is start educating themselves about milage and efficiency.

Why wait until Bush and Cheney say "go"?
LWong
September 1, 2006
5:16 am
Nothing beast LED(2W to 3W) as reading light.
http://www.thinkgeek.com/clearance/7aa8/
Just don't break them, since bulb costs are still high.

Try telecommuting/teleconferencing, it saves more than gasoline.
We should travel for pleasure, not for business.
snow
September 1, 2006
1:38 pm
MF, sure it's logical that when prices skyrocket that consumption would decrease, but halve? Just not realistic or possible. Maybe the odd person who has an extra car can get by with one, but industry can't easily halve their consumption. If they could, they would have done so already to save on costs. The reality is that in a competitive free market, companies have done plenty of cost cutting. They could probably cut more, but certainly no where near 50% and still produce the same amount.

For example, the airline industry is fighting furiously to cut fuel costs, as they've been hurting big time. How much more can they cut? Very very little. Airlines are looking to technological improvements and other measures to decrease fuel consumption and increase efficiency. They have cut to the bone and can't cut more. Airlines are an extreme example, as they are especially reliant on fuel, but this is the problem that most industry faces. For example, Korean Air -I live in Korea- is very pleased with a 2.5% decrease in consumption last year and IATA, an international air standards organization, is pushing major airlines to reduce by 10% between 2000 and 2010. 50% is just not realistic for industry.

Little efforts are certainly worthwhile by individuals, but 50%? Can you cut your consumption of energy by 50%, and I don't mean just gas consumption, all consumption of energy. The only way is if you want to start taking sponge baths, washing your dishes and flushing the toilet once a week and turn the heater way down and the air con off. How long would that last for most people? And industry can't cut like that and still produce at the same levels.
snow
September 1, 2006
1:42 pm
oh, so that's how you get the crossed out lines! the 'I live in Korea' bit should have been in brackets as my reason for using Korean Air as an example and my company has done work with them, so I'm a little bit familiar with the company's operations, as well as a variety of other corporations (mostly Korean).
snow
September 1, 2006
1:52 pm
The only way to cut US fuel consumption by 50% is to shutter half of industry and force a 50% reduction on individuals. Just as with Kyoto, the 'solution' would be worse than the problem.
MF
September 1, 2006
3:55 pm
snow, ok, I see your point. I don't know where the 50% figure came from, but some will hopefully be able to do more, some less.

jon also makes a good point about taxes hitting the poorer harder. Since the point is not to get revenue for the government, but to reduce consumption, some (actually all) of that tax revenue should go straight back to people who can proove that they need it. That is a cornerstone of the tax policy in Northern Europe, although it will never be flawless. So there are currently no US gasoline taxes?
marquer
September 1, 2006
5:49 pm

I guess I'll be the one to point out that our high levels of energy use are not frivolous, but rather are one large contributing factor in significant productivity increases.


For the life of me, I can't see how such American peculiarities as having people use enormous 2500kg trucks as single-occupancy commuter vehicles have any conceivable relevance to "productivity" as I understand the word.

(To say nothing of equipping those trucks with heavy and complex four-wheel-drive systems which are in the majority of cases never engaged, save perhaps to engage the vanity of the owner that he could, if he chose, drive off of the road.)

Dr. Wallace suggests that 50% reductions in usage are a reasonable target. Our own household has come close to this in the last four years. Some of that was attained by upgrading equipment. Some was simple maintenance and repair of existing equipment which was operating inefficiently.

And yes, I am sure to J. Kende's shock, some of it was due to voluntarily enduring modestly increased physical discomfort. We wear heavier clothes during winter evenings rather than constantly running the central heating. The torture of doing so is almost too much to bear!

What a weak culture America has become. In truth, I would bicycle in the rain and I would endure ice-cold showers if it meant that we could decouple permanently from the treacherous Saudis.

I do approve of many of the technological improvements which J. Kende lists. But in a world where fossil fuel supplies are shrinking rapidly, and where the US population is on course to double in the next few decades, technology alone is not going to suffice. There are going to have to be lifestyle changes, ineluctibly.
snow
September 2, 2006
3:51 am
Marquer, I think you are somewhat unique if you are able to reduce your consumption by 50% in such a short time. Very few others could do it so easily. I for one don't drive a big hulking gas guzzler, take the subway during the week and take short showers, etc., but this is all a drop in the bucket when industry requires major inputs of energy. Individuals can make a difference, but it will never be enough to make a serious dent in our dependence on foreign sources of oil. The only way that is going to happen is through diversifying our sources of oil, developing alternatives and reducing consumption. Technology will play a major role here, along with spending huge amounts to develop the infrastructure for alternatives and finding alternatives, whether they be oil or otherwise. Are you going to be the one to tell Americans that they can't drive whatever vehicle they want and can't live the comfort level they want? The only suitable way to persuade people is with price increases and these should be market driven, not government manufactured.
Dan tdaxp
September 2, 2006
4:29 pm
Jon,

Your concern about the poor is right, but in general such problems should be dealt with out of the income tax. If we really want to help them, give them a larger earned-income tax credit or healthcare.

Alec,

or whatever renewable energy source is convinient for the vested interests in the energy game.


Do you want a pragmatic solution? If so, deal with vested interests? You don't want won? Fine, but such concerns are better left for abstract philosophy than politics.

Snow,

The only way to cut US fuel consumption by 50% is to shutter half of industry and force a 50% reduction on individuals.


Every part of the economy is equally energy dependent and energy-price inelastic? Amazing!
tdaxp
September 6, 2006
1:09 pm
Cole's Oil Cartography

"Bush Turns to Fear-Mongering: Creation of 'Islamic' Bogeyman," by Juan Cole, Informed Comment, 6 September 2006, http://www.juancole.com/2006/09/bush-turns-to-fear-mongering-creation.html.

The latest column by Juan Cole (a Professor at the Univ...
tdaxp
September 20, 2006
5:45 pm
Bush's Anti-Geogreen Gas Tax

"Dumb as We Wanna Be," by Thomas Friedman, New York Times, 20 September 2006, A27.

I've written before on the need for a geogreen gas tax. Raising the effective cost of petroleum to something like five-dollars-per-galloon. A geogreen gas tax sup...
Hydrocodone apap 5 500.
February 3, 2007
2:44 pm
Hydrocodone.

Hydrocodone withdrawl. Hydrocodone. I had a healthy baby while i took hydrocodone. Buy hydrocodone online without a prescription. How long does hydrocodone stay in your system. Buy hydrocodone.