Under Bush, Bin Laden gets his wish

[RunInRed 16,454]

Energy independent countries (or marching aggressively in that direction): Brazil, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Costa Rica, and Iceland.

I just fundamentally disagree with your premise that Bush gets a pass b/c energy was cheap and therefore, there were "more pressing issues." That is not leadership. Leaders see problems on the horizon (there surely were plenty of signs) and take aggressive action to get ahead of the curve. Has Bush done this? Did Clinton do this? Did congress do this? NO.

Now as for Bush

Despite the hoopla of the president's whirlwind tour, and his promises of more federal dollars in the future, the nation's premier center for research into wind, solar, and ethanol energy labors under a shrunken budget at a time when consumers are facing record-high prices for fossil fuels. Regardless of the last-minute move that allowed NREL to hire back its fired workers, the center's funding is down 11 percent from last year, and Bush's proposed budget would not even restore the lab to 2005 levels.

Administration officials maintain that the numbers don't tell the whole story and Bush's plan would actually devote more dollars to research next year--particularly in key areas. But the federal government's long-wavering commitment to alternative energy was something even the president was forced to acknowledge at the lab nestled in the Rocky Mountain foothills just west of Denver. "I recognize that there has been some interesting, let me say, mixed signals, when it comes to funding," he told the scientists. "My message to those who work here is ... we appreciate what you're doing. And we expect you to keep doing it, and we want to help you keep doing it."

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/artic...306/6energy.htm

Finally, to quote an old cliche - you plan for a flood when the sun is shining...not when the levees are on the verge of busting.

[RunInRed 16,454]

That's funny RIR, you are accusing others of taking things out of context. I guess giving a thread the title of "Under Bush, Bin Laden gets his wish" is straightforward and accurate title huh? I guess that title was not meant to be misleading in relation to the subject matter huh? I guess we need to take you at your word since you have not provided us with one fact to back up your opinion.

Wait, what happened to giving both sides of an argument. I guess your post, and especially the topic header you gave it, was not really one sided was it?

You obviously have not been paying attention. I have bashed both Clinton and Bush and Congress when it comes to this issue. I don't know how much more "fair and balanced" you want. Get your head out of the sand.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Iceland - population 330k vs 300 million in US

Iceland 39,768 square miles vs 3+ million square miles

New Zeland - population 4.2 million

New Zeland 104k Square Miles

Brazil's per capita income is below $4,000 us dollars per year (NOBODY OWNS A FREAKIN CAR)...and they produce gobs and gobs of sugar based ethanol (which is WAY more efficient than corn based).

Costa Rica - per capita income 4600

No MAJOR country is going through this oil press without feeling it...hence the GLOBAL PROBLEM.

[RunInRed 16,454]

Iceland - population 330k vs 300 million in US

Iceland 39,768 square miles vs 3+ million square miles

New Zeland - population 4.2 million

New Zeland 104k Square Miles

Brazil's per capita income is below $4,000 us dollars per year (NOBODY OWNS A FREAKIN CAR)...and they produce gobs and gobs of sugar based ethanol (which is WAY more efficient than corn based).

Costa Rica - per capita income 4600

No MAJOR country is going through this oil press without feeling it...hence the GLOBAL PROBLEM.

So why is it asking too much for the U.S. to take the lead on this? Why are you such a pessimist when it comes to us being capable of solving our energy problems? I'm a realist but i'm also optimistic that the greatest nation on earth can solve this problem - other MAJOR countries can follow if they wish

[BamaGrad03 0]

So why is it asking too much for the U.S. to take the lead on this? Why are you such a pessimist when it comes to us being capable of solving our energy problems? I'm a realist but i'm also optimistic that the greatest nation on earth can solve this problem - other MAJOR countries can follow if they wish

I'm not a pessimist. But I understand what it would require to redo our entire national transportation infastructure.

And I also understand that it takes a need from the consumer before companies will react. And that's what we are seeing now. I honestly believe we will have fully electric cars WAY before we could ever make a dent with requiring mass transit etc.

And nothing is going to change Americans want to live outside of the city. So comparing us to other countries is disingenous. And to blame the oil problem on the president is equally as such.

I'm not in favor of massive economy crippling movements that include taxes and infastructure reworks, to have a SLIGHT SLIGHT SLIGHT impact on market demand and usage...and if we aren't in favor of it now, how was Bush supposed to sell it to the American people when gas was $2 a gallon?

[RunInRed 16,454]

Mass transit/infrastructure investment would be great (believe me, I live down 280) but I have never advocated for that as the solution to this. I'm talking about an energy source other than fossil fuels.

Again, holding the President accountable is not disigenious. I know you are a limited government guy but this crisis is a perfect example of what happens when Governments don't intervene enough. I stand by my premise that if Bush came into DC in 2000 and said "we are going to have an apollo like mission and begin to solve this problem over the next 8 years" ... kind of like JFK challenged the country to put a man on the moon in 10 years and then put the full resources of the Federal Governemtn behind the initiative. Believe me, it could have been done - it takes leadership. Quit defending Bush with this GLOBAL MARKET, laissez faire crap. I don't buy it and I'm willing to call this adminstration for what it is when it comes to energy - a complete failure.

[BamaGrad03 0]

So why do you keep ignoring the fact that they've devoted more $ to alternative energy than any other administration ever?

And why do you keep ignoring the fact that no market analyst is saying the current crisis has anything to do with lack of funding in alternative fuels?

[BamaGrad03 0]

Also to some of your points:

1) Pass legislation that mandates higher fuel economy standards

Go here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24258714/

WASHINGTON - The next generation of new cars and trucks will need to meet a fleet average of 31.6 miles per gallon by 2015, the Bush administration proposed Tuesday, seeking more fuel-efficient vehicles in the face of high gasoline prices and concerns over global warming.

4) Invest in clean energy technology and energy R&D (biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerating the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promoting development of commercial-scale renewable energy, investing in low-emissions coal plants, and begin the transition to a new digital electricity grid). This investment could further be assisted by developing clean technology venture capital funds supported by the Governement

Already noted how Bush administration is giving great monies to alternative energy research.

5) Devote resources to develop clean coal technology

Here:http://hsdailywire.com/single.php?id=6389

The Bush administration sees clean coal as a vital component of its energy policy, and the Department of Energy announced a funding opportunity of $1.3 billion for companies and organizations doing research and development of clean coal

1.3 BILLION FREAKIN DOLLARS.

7) Establish grant programs and offer tax credits for early adopters of new technologies

Uhhh the Energy Policy Act of 2005 created an income tax credit of up to $3400 for purchase of an alternative energy vehicle/hybrid.

[RunInRed 16,454]

So why do you keep ignoring the fact that they've devoted more $ to alternative energy than any other administration ever?

And why do you keep ignoring the fact that no market analyst is saying the current crisis has anything to do with lack of funding in alternative fuels?

1) Throwing money at a problem is not leadership (see No Child Left Behind)

2) The idea that Bush has devoted more $ to alternative energy is definitely a disingeious claim, especially when we have the largest Federal budget ever. Of course there is going to be more money devoted to alternative energy today than there was in 1970. Come on BG...

But NREL spent recent weeks cutting back its research ambitions for the year, because Congress not only kept renewable energy funding flat but chomped into the allocation further with a record $170 million in congressionally directed projects that send money to home districts. These "earmarks" consumed more than 50 percent of the federal dollars for biomass research, 33 percent for wind energy, and 27 percent for hydrogen, an American Association for the Advancement of Science analysis shows. The $2.5 million devoted to a hydrogen bus system in Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid's home state of Nevada (even though hydrogen buses are not yet available commercially), for example, takes away from money that would have been spent on competitively bid, peer-reviewed projects to bring hydrogen transport closer to reality.

Bush has vowed to reverse the trend by increasing renewable energy funding 22 percent in his proposed budget, to $771 million. Still, that amounts to less than 1 percent of the $55 billion the federal government spends annually on research, nearly half of which is devoted to healthcare. "Yet healthcare disappears the second the electricity goes out," says one NREL scientist.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/artic...306/6energy.htm

3) If we had an alternative source of energy (particularly for vehicles) your market analyst could spend there time analyzing why a barrell of oil was selling for about $2 - demand would tank.

4) Are these energy investments some of the "earmarks" McCain is talking about eliminating?

[BamaGrad03 0]

1) Throwing money at a problem is not leadership (see No Child Left Behind)

Uhhh what else can the government do? $$ is their biggest leverage.

And $771m is a lot of money.

What? No response to the tax credit?

The idea that Bush has devoted more $ to alternative energy is definitely a disingeious claim, especially when we have the largest Federal budget ever. Of course there is going to be more money devoted to alternative energy today than there was in 1970. Come on BG...

So now, it's not about the fact that he has devoted tons to alternative energy...it's about his budget? Stay on topic dude.

Why has he spent more than Clinton? Why doesn't he get credit for that?

By the way, NONE of the items in your list have any impact on market pricing. None. At least not anything that could have put even the tiniest dent in offsetting emerging market demand.

But then again, that's just what the analyst say. I'm sure you know more than them.

3) If we had an alternative source of energy (particularly for vehicles) your market analyst could spend there time analyzing why a barrell of oil was selling for about $2 - demand would tank.

Alternative sources of energy will come about when it's financially expedient. The market determines that. Up until a couple of years ago, we had ridiculously cheap energy...so auto companies weren't churning out electric cars. Now that energy costs are high, the market is being reshaped.

It's pretty simple actually.

[autiger4life 3]

It is quite simple.

First of all, your countries you used are pretty misleading. They are smaller, don't have the needs that we do, and have natural resources that we don't.

Iceland mainly is powered from Geothermal energy, which is not available except in the southwest in the US.

Brazil uses sugar ethonal, which is not viable in the US, just as corn is not.

If you take even an intro to geo class you will learn the only viable alternative energy that can be used on a massive scale is nuclear energy. Which is mainly being held up BY THE DEMOCRATS.

If you think wind and solar are going to be viable then you should be laughed at. Aside for a few midwest states, and even select ones at that, Wind is not viable. As far as solar, it is not really cost effective right now on a large scale and in most places wouldn't work on a large scale.

The only other thing that is viable is Nuclear but until people actually learn about it and quit crapping their pants at every thought then it won't ever happen.

Note: I excluded clean coal because it really isn't alternative, it is just a different way of production.

[RunInRed 16,454]

BG asked for countries who were marching towards energy independence and I provided them. Now those country aren't big enough. :::sigh::: For all you who want to keep saying no we can't (Titan, BG, TM, just to name a few)...I'll keep responding, "Yes We Can"

And BG - I think you missed this above:

Bush has vowed to reverse the trend by increasing renewable energy funding 22 percent in his proposed budget, to $771 million. Still, that amounts to less than 1 percent of the $55 billion the federal government spends annually on research

As for tax credits, I think that is a positive step. BRAVO Bush.

You all keep thinking this is just some ideological rail against Bush...and while it's not an ideological rail...it is a blast against Bush because he's been in charge for 8 years...but it's also a rail against every administration for the past 30 years who have not done any thing to solve this problem. So now you have 2 options: 1) sit back and do nothing and let the "free markets" figure it out - which appears to be working so wonderfully or 2) have a Government that protects it's citizens, ensures our economic independence, keeps us safe, and leads the world by solving the energy crisis and the world's dependence on fossil fuels.

Like every thing else...I guess it it all boils down to a difference in political philosophies.

[autiger4life 3]

So now you have 2 options: 1) sit back and do nothing and let the "free markets" figure it out - which appears to be working so wonderfully

Yes, it is working. It doesn't happen overnight just as Chinese demand did not happen overnight.

You continue to show your ignorance when it comes to free-market. We have yet to hit a point where it matters enough to Americans to change the market. Even at three dollars a gallon SUV sales were rising. So answer me this, if people are still willing to purchase high gas consuming cars, still not carpool, and still not allow nuclear power, then why should the government step in.

Read Thomas Friedman's article on it. When prices hit around $6.00 then Americans will actually change their spending and it will become economically beneficial for companies to conserve more and create newer technology just as we are seeing is happening on the Hybrid market. And when it does happen it will happen fast. You can't push the free market but we are not nearly at a point where it cannot be self corrected. We just have yet to hit the threshold that will swing the free market. When we do we will develop new technology, switch to clean coal(which is already available) and build nuclear power plants.

BG asked for countries who were marching towards energy independence and I provided them. Now those country aren't big enough. :::sigh::: For all you who want to keep saying no we can't (Titan, BG, TM, just to name a few)...I'll keep responding, "Yes We Can"

Well I for one did not dismiss it on a basis of size. It was a terrible comparison between the countries. Size really doesn't matter in this case, you are right about that. There are plenty of small countries that are not independent. The question is how these few became independent and why the US doesn't do the same. The simple answer is that we can't. Either we don't have the geological resources for it, we consume to much for their methods, or we don't have the crop climates for it. If you could show me a country with the same percentage or even close percentage of oil used per capita that became dependent using a method the US can use then I will listen, but so far you have highlighted a few isolated countries who use methods unavailable here.

[RunInRed 16,454]

If people are still willing to purchase high gas consuming cars, still not carpool, and still not allow nuclear power, then why should the government step in.

Just taking action when it is politically convenient (now) is not leadership. Some of the actions we are finally starting to see from the Private market and soon to see from the public sector once Obama becomes President is about 20 years over due.

Well I for one did not dismiss it on a basis of size. It was a terrible comparison between the countries. Size really doesn't matter in this case, you are right about that. There are plenty of small countries that are not independent. The question is how these few became independent and why the US doesn't do the same. The simple answer is that we can't. Either we don't have the geological resources for it, we consume to much for their methods, or we don't have the crop climates for it. If you could show me a country with the same percentage or even close percentage of oil used per capita that became dependent using a method the US can use then I will listen, but so far you have highlighted a few isolated countries who use methods unavailable here.

Sweden and Norway are largely energy independent because they get about 75% of their energy from Nuclear power and they bury the waste. Now, those two countries aren't the U.S. by any means but they are in another growing number of countries who are finding another way than fossil fuels. Also, I'm not saying Nuclear is the answer - it might be part of the equation - but I'd still like to see a little more evidence/information on if this disposal of nuclear power is safe.

All I'm saying is the U.S. should be a world leader on this issue...we can solve this, there is no reason why we can not. Global markets walk when we can develop and produce our own (prefereably clean/green)energy source here.

[au2004ece 30]

The market is working. Now that gas prices are higher, other areas of energy production become profitable. The market is a much better determinant of the correct way to proceed when it comes to technology development. Why should we trust any government official to choose which companies or which causes to provide our alternative fuel research money to? It makes much better sense to keep taxes low and allow the market to determine.

Look at corn-based ethanol. The government chose corn-based ethanol as an alternate fuel worth pursuing.

Obviously this was a bad choice. Not only is corn-based ethanol not very efficient and still costs more to produce than regular oil based gasoline, it also creates food shortages and food prices skyrocket because of the extra demand for corn. This was a stupid decision made by government officials in an effort to pander to farmers. Why shouldn't we expect the next decision of where to invest our taxpayer money to be just as stupid?

Do you really believe that this country has been the most successful in the world because of the decisions made by government bureaucrats? I don't. I believe the US has been successful because of its free market economy. The best idea wins because its the best idea, not because some government bureaucrat picked it. The best solution to energy problems will come about because of the free market. If gas prices go back down, then oil-based gas will continue to be our best solution. If not, something will replace it because it works the most in our free market. To try to change this will create a bastardized half solution that continues to cost the government and taxpayers money long into the future. If you really believe that an alternate energy fuel can work at this point, then their are plenty of companies that will gladly take your investment.

[au2004ece 30]

The countries that you list as energy dependent make full use of existing resources. If you believe these countries are good examples, then why don't you support the US doing the same thing? We have plenty more resources available that are illegal to tap.

[autiger4life 3]

The government chose ethanol as an alternate fuel worth pursuing.

Just to be clear here, the government chose corn based ethanol. That was stupid, but and hurt crops but ethanol didn't. There are different types that are being researched that could eventually help a lot such as algae and switch grass based ethanol which would not hurt crops and could be grown in not fertile regions. I am not arguing just clarifying.