I am an independant thinker, trending Conservative. I liked Clinton, and never really bought into the bashing he took for his sexual escapades. I do not like his wife. I voted for Bush and supported the war, but now am disillusioned with its progress and his leadership.
That said, I will vote for anyone who makes a Kennedyesque going-to-the-moon style stand for us to find an alternative source of energy.
Why are we not hearing this from either side today? Sure, both sides pay lip service, and Bush has allocated funds for research, but where is the candidate saying “No matter what it takes, America will be independant of foreign oil within 10 years. We will endeavor as hard as we did during World War 2 and during our race to the moon to find a source of energy that will sustain us and free us from the frailty and uncertainty of the Middle East.”
Make that our focus. Bring the troops home from the useless deserts that produce only oil and blood. This seems like the key to peace as well as to American preimmenence in the 21st century. I think this is good for America and the world.
I would vote for any Republican, Democrat or independant who would make this pledge, unless they had three heads or were psychopathic or something. I would be able to overlook a lot of faults if this were the expressed goal.
So two questions:
Should the pursuit of alternative energy sources be issue #1 in 2008?
What issues would trump this issue as a matter of importance?
Cast it as ‘energy independence’ rather than ‘alternative energy’, add a green tinge about reorganising society, land use, etc, to use less energy, and you have my vote… Even though I am in a country that sells the US a lot of oil and would suffer if that sale was cut off. IMHO, the US’ Quest for Oil is one of the greatest political destabilisers in the world today.
The thing is, energy independence already exists within the United States. We could certainly switch over to hydrogen and hybrid vehicles, increase our mass transit systems, and move to nuclear power plants for general use. All is possible with technology we already have.
The problem is, it would be exceedingly expensive to the taxpayers. Not just in tax money- such as what would be needed to lay down new nuclear reactors and investing in other technologies- but also directly to the taxpayer in terms of car maintenance, energy bills, etc. The only way to get rid of those costs would be to subsidize it- which would mean either cutting services or hiking taxes, neither of which fly real well as political ideas.
Then, of course, you run into the locality issues. How many people swoon at the idea of independence from oil until such point as it means building a nuclear reactor in their backyard? At the idea of easy mass transit into The City until they find out the route runs directly behind their house?
Finally, what you’ll be asking voters to do is in large part to change their habits. “We can be free of this, just stop driving places. Put on a sweater. Turn down the thermostat.” Asking the voters to change their ways is a much harder sell than promising to help them continue to do what they’ve always done. Ask Jimmy Carter.
And some of us remember the Synthetic Fuels program that was the “new hot thing” a generation ago, and turned out to be nothing but a political boondogle.
Back in the early 60s, people had a lot more faith in government and the political process than they do now. We’re jaded now, and not for nothin’. Time and again we’ve been sold a bill of goods. I’m not sure that a “send a man to the moon” program would get the same reception today it got 40 years ago. And it would take a charismatic leader to do it, too. Imagine any of hte candidates last time around trying to be charismatic… Maybe a new, charismatic leader will arise, but I don’t see any on the horizon now.
One problem with developing alternative energy is the NIMBYism of some people.
For example, residents of Martha’s Vineyard are fighting wind turbines placed off the coast. Another, which hits closer to home for me, is that an ethanol plant is planned for Franklin County, Pennsylvania. The ethanol would fuel farm machinery in place of more expensive gasoline, which, in turn, would make farming more profitable. But people don’t want that in their backyard.
For which you would be rightly flayed for instituting a regressive tax.
Or do you think that the average lower-middle-class family can easily afford to grab a new Prius? Because there isn’t anything out there over 40MPG that isn’t a high-end, new-off-the-line hybrid like a Prius.
They won’t be taxed more to drive a cheap little Focus like I do.
Only cars below 20mpg would be charged more, but I failed to specify that mark so my bad. Don’t worry I won’t be running for Pres.
Big surprise here I’m sure, but I don’t think the government should (or can) do this. Why? Couple of reasons really. First off, I don’t think the government is particularly good or efficient in doing these kinds of projects. We’d pour in billions of dollars and much of the money would be wasted IMHO. Secondly, whatever we got wouldn’t necessarily be what we’d need…or the optimal solution for the problem. It would be whatever the government planners THOUGHT would be what we needed or what was best.
Myself, I think this is another case where (wait for it…) da market would be a better solution to this. For one thing they are motivated by greed…always a plus in my book. Being motivated by greed they are in competition to produce the best alternative to our present hydrocarbon economy. In fact, there are several competing companies who are pursueing different alternatives right now…from more efficient and wide spread use of hybrid technology to alternative fuels and fuel cells, solar, etc.
When the consummer starts to feel the pinch of rising energy costs then alternatives will be introduced and slowly things will change. NIMBY-ism? Well, when the cost of that coal or oil fired powerplants energy reaches some point then perhaps that new fangled nuclear power plant will start to look more attractive…even if it IS in your back yard. When the price of keeping gas in your SUV guzzler begins to really hurt, maybe one of those new fangled hybrids is just the ticket…or maybe even using hydrogen power or something else the big brain boys dream up.
There’s only one thing that will make alternative energy the number one issue of the 2008 campaign: energy prices that have increased significantly from today’s increased levels, and are headed higher.
Otherwise, I find it hard to believe that people will be more concerned about the price of a gallon of gas than in health care, jobs, education, abortion, or the environment more generally.
Moreover, I question whether Katrina and today’s gas prices might make people think a little differently about “energy independence.” If, for example, all gasoline we used was produced in the US, and a hurricane wiped out a large portion of the Gulf Coast area, I think we’d be a lot worse situation today. There is an economic advantage in having a diversity of sources as well.
Just to add another dimension to this, but I don’t think the companies that are making money off oil and petroleum would sit idly by if a candidate runs with an energy plan that doesn’t protect their revenue stream. Which isn’t to say that they are opposed to “alternative sources” or “energy independence,” but they’re currently focused on getting as much as they can from the existing sources until it’s no longer feasible. Any move away from that would need to get their buy-in, or else the candidate will be buried in a multi-billion-dollar countercampaign.
The best way to protect their revenue stream would be to plow some amount of their unseemly profits into research that enables them to be first online with an alternative. Even they can’t be so short-sighted as to think the oil situation will maintain indefinitely. Can they?
I agree that oil companies will probably be the biggest proponents of alternative energies as the cost of oil exceeds what the market will bear.
But I think they probably have a long term view on alternative energies, because they know oil is a viable HUGELY profitable commodity for probably decades to come. They will get on board AE (alternative energy) when it suits THEM.
Meanwhile, what happens if OPEC or a member state decides it doesn’t want to sell to us for 30 days? What if Katrina had happened while we were in an OPEC or member state embargo? There would be lines, rationing and skyrocketing prices.
I know big oil will try to bury any candidate who runs on an AE agenda, if the candidate makes it a REAL issue. They will be allowed to pay it lip service, but that’s it.
So here I am, a Conservative with a seething, burning rage against the oil companies. It’s quite a liberating feeiling!
I also agree that a government initiative amy not be the best way to do it. Private enterprise will give us the most effective solution. Why aren’t they doing it now?
Maybe “they” are doing as much as the economics of the situation dictate.
I brought up the following point in another thread: Every technical problem doesn’t start and end the US. European countries have policies making gasoline very expensive, and yet no European company or university* has cracked the “alternative fuel” problem yet. Why? Are European scietists not as smart as American scientists? Of course, American company might be just as interested in solving the European problem, too. And yet none has. Virtually every country in the world has a reason to want alternative energy sources.
Of course the economics of the situation is changing rapidly, and we probably will see the response of private industry change as well. Just look at hybrids. They were geeky products that no one wanted to buy 3 years ago, and now there are waiting lists months long to get them. I do tend to agree with Ravenman, though, that we’ll need to see considerably higher energy costs before it really makes sense to find an alternative. But, the higher they go, the better the alternatives look.
*One might argue that European governments aren’t too motivated to elimate petroleum because of the revenue it generates for their treasuries.
nitpick: I think it makes complete sense to work as quickly as possible to make alternative fuels a reality; but it simply won’t be a politically important issue unless energy costs grow ever-higher.
On a per capita basis, the US produces and consumes more energy than about 95% of the countries on earth. That should give you a clue where the problem and the solution lies. We produce enough energy now but consume way more than most of the rest of the world.
In regard to oil, present domestic oil production meets the amount consumed in about 1956. The last time the US entirely meet its oil consumption was some year before 1949.
While looking for additional energy is desirable, the quest is much like searching for the end of a rainbow. Consumption will come down dramatically, either because we choose to do so voluntarily, or because the existing fuel stocks eventually deplete.
No, really. Why not 2006?
Finding alternative energy sources is only part of the solution. We also need to work on the demand side – especially, building more energy-efficient means of personal transportation; that’s the great big elephant-in-the-bedroom energy-sucker in our society. We need high-speed rail for long-distance travel and regional light-rail networks for daily commuting – all of which can be run on electricity, which means they can be supplied by nuclear power plants. See this thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=269307
Of course, we also need more nuclear power plants. I don’t think a single new one has been built in the U.S. since the '70s. And they’re not as dangerous as they used to be. The technology has improved. The French get 78% of their electricity from nuclear power (compared to only 20% for the U.S. – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#Current_and_planned_use), and when’s the last time you heard of a power-plant accident there?