McCain - "The Lexington Project"

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Sam Stone

I actually agree with all this. The cutesy name is annoying.

Is there an equivalent in Canada? Do people drape maple leafs all over cars and furniture in order to sell them?

[Sam_Stone]

Not as much. You do see Maple Leaves on a lot of products - Roots clothing and gear, for example. But you don’t see the flag waved nearly as much as you do in the U.S., and you don’t see them as a backdrop in commercials and flying in front of stores.

[Cervaise]

@ladyfoxfyre

Well, it seems like Charlie Crist is all over the idea now.

Crist is angling for McCain’s VP nomination.

[ladyfoxfyre]

@Cervaise

Crist is angling for McCain’s VP nomination.

Oh trust me, I know why he’s all for it. I don’t think anybody here is happy about it.

[RickJay]

@Sam Stone

Not as much. You do see Maple Leaves on a lot of products - Roots clothing and gear, for example. But you don’t see the flag waved nearly as much as you do in the U.S., and you don’t see them as a backdrop in commercials and flying in front of stores.

It’s just my perception, but it’s definitely on the increase, I think. A new car dealership opened near my parents’ place and it has a lot of the ol’ red-and-white.

[Shodan]

@Sam Stone

I agree with that as well. Fusion is far too speculative to have as part of the planned mix of energy. We may never be able to make it cost effective. Or if we can, it might not be for another hundred years.

FTR, McCain doesn’t mention fusion as part of his energy plans - that is my interpolation.

Regards,
Shodan

[MrDibble]

When I hear “Lexington” I think of cigarettes.

[Do_Not_Taunt]

@BrainGlutton

No plans should be predicated on the assumption that it will ever be possible to use controlled nuclear fusion as a power source. It might be, it might not be. Fund the research, but all means, but for Og’s sake don’t count on it.

I agree wholeheartedly, and agree wholeheartedly if you substitute “clean coal” where you wrote “nuclear fusion” as well.

[BrainGlutton]

@ladyfoxfyre

Oh trust me, I know why he’s all for it. I don’t think anybody here is happy about it.

Not happy about the prospect of getting rid of him?

(Whether Lt. Gov. Jeff Kottkamp would be an improvement is another qestion . . . Few Floridians know much about him.)

[ladyfoxfyre]

@BrainGlutton

Not happy about the prospect of getting rid of him?

I’d love to get rid of him, increasing his sphere of influence is not exactly what I’d call “getting rid of him” though.

[Cisco]

While I’m generally against drilling, I’m actually ok with it IF it is very clear that it is only a temporary measure to curb imports while we establish independence, and not a long-term plan to re-establish a domestic fossil fuel economy. Even in that case, though, I’m against drilling in ANWR. I just don’t believe there is enough oil there to make it worth it, financially or environmentally.

[Shodan]

I think that, as the price of oil rises, that idea will be harder and harder to maintain.

Regards,
Shodan

[Squink]

@Shodan

I think that, as the price of oil rises, that idea will be harder and harder to maintain.

Especially if we start going after the offshore methane clathrate deposits. Sadly, McCain doesn’t mention these in his plans. I expect that’s just an oversight on his part.

On a different note, McCain’s probably made some blogger very happy:
http://thelexingtonproject.blogspot.com/

The Lexington Project is a free, bi-weekly email zine based in Lexington, KY that publishes every other Wednesday. The basic goal is to let people know what’s really going on around town and the region. We’re trying out a blog format with the hopes that non-subscribers will stumble upon it and get involved.

[RTFirefly]

Is ‘clean coal’ realistic, though?

President Bush is for it, and indeed has spent years talking up the virtues of “clean coal.” All three candidates to succeed him favor the approach. So do many other members of Congress. Coal companies are for it. Many environmentalists favor it. Utility executives are practically begging for the technology.

But it has become clear in recent months that the nation’s effort to develop the technique is lagging badly.

In January, the government canceled its support for what was supposed to be a showcase project, a plant at a carefully chosen site in Illinois where there was coal, access to the power grid, and soil underfoot that backers said could hold the carbon dioxide for eons.

Perhaps worse, in the last few months, utility projects in Florida, West Virginia, Ohio, Minnesota and Washington State that would have made it easier to capture carbon dioxide have all been canceled or thrown into regulatory limbo.

Coal is abundant and cheap, assuring that it will continue to be used. But the failure to start building, testing, tweaking and perfecting carbon capture and storage means that developing the technology may come too late to make coal compatible with limiting global warming.

“It’s a total mess,” said Daniel M. Kammen, director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley.

[RTFirefly]

Another thing is, the primary goal isn’t energy independence, it’s bringing global warming to a halt.

It’s hard to imagine a route to that goal that doesn’t achieve energy independence along the way, but it’s easy to imagine routes to energy independence that work against combatting global warming.

Things like new drilling and pushing biofuels fit into that latter category. With the possible exception of using garbage and agricultural waste as a biofuel source, my understanding is that when all factors are considered, biofuels really aren’t any better than gasoline, carbonwise.

[Laughing_Lagomorph]

@ladyfoxfyre

I’d love to get rid of him, increasing his sphere of influence is not exactly what I’d call “getting rid of him” though.

Ah, come on. VP of the US has no influence at all!
(Sitting in Lexington MA as I write this…)

[Little_Nemo]

While I’m generally against drilling, I’m actually ok with it IF it is very clear that it is only a temporary measure to curb imports while we establish independence, and not a long-term plan to re-establish a domestic fossil fuel economy. Even in that case, though, I’m against drilling in ANWR. I just don’t believe there is enough oil there to make it worth it, financially or environmentally.

The whole thing about Alaskan oil is that it won’t benefit anyone you or I know. Oil companies will be handed a windfall supply of oil, they’ll drill it out and sell it at market prices. They’ll make a fortune and we’ll see no practical difference in our fuel costs.

Alaskan oil reserves are estimated around 10,000,000,000 barrels. The United States uses 20,000,000 barrels a day. Do the math - we would drain Alaska in about 500 days. If we started pumping it today, we be right back where we are now around the start of winter in 2009.

Alaskan oil serves a much better purpose staying where it is. It’s a strategic reserve. And I don’t mean that in the economic sense. I’m talking strategic in the military and political sense. It means that no group of oil producing countries can blackmail us because if worse comes to worse we have a sixteen month supply of oil that we control. Which gives the United States armed forces sixteen months to show those countries how we feel about being blackmailed. Unless of course, we used up our reserves so we could have a fifty cent reduction at the gas pump.

[Ludovic]

@Little Nemo

The whole thing about Alaskan oil is that it won’t benefit anyone you or I know. Oil companies will be handed a windfall supply of oil, they’ll drill it out and sell it at market prices. They’ll make a fortune and we’ll see no practical difference in our fuel costs.

Alaskan oil reserves are estimated around 10,000,000,000 barrels. The United States uses 20,000,000 barrels a day. Do the math - we would drain Alaska in about 500 days. If we started pumping it today, we be right back where we are now around the start of winter in 2009.

Alaskan oil serves a much better purpose staying where it is. It’s a strategic reserve. And I don’t mean that in the economic sense. I’m talking strategic in the military and political sense. It means that no group of oil producing countries can blackmail us because if worse comes to worse we have a sixteen month supply of oil that we control. Which gives the United States armed forces sixteen months to show those countries how we feel about being blackmailed. Unless of course, we used up our reserves so we could have a fifty cent reduction at the gas pump.

That’s exactly how I feel. Ask me when gas is $20/gallon, you might get a different response. (By then that oil should represent around $4 trillion worth of oil!) (actually probably less because Alaskan oil is not light sweet IIRC?)

[Cisco]

@Little Nemo

The whole thing about Alaskan oil is that it won’t benefit anyone you or I know . . .

Were you trying to convince me that we shouldn’t drill in ANWR? If so, I think you might’ve misread my post. I’ve done the math.