The many subsidies the oil industry gets compared to what renewables get makes then what you posted a joke, as it was the one about dropping solar and wind, no expert out there can take you seriously.
Very redundant thing to say when that has been the point of many environmentalists, having a tax on carbon is a good thing, and the revenue from that should go to the deployment of renewables. The problem remains, Republicans are not interested on doing that first step.
I’m with you that nuclear deserves more support. I’m not with you with regards to disparaging research into solar, etc. as “chasing sunbeams.” That is a dismissive attitude born from prejudicial politics, not from the technological reality and future possibilities. It is as ignorant as dismissing nuclear.
And while I will give you substance credit for nuclear, too much of the rest of what you write on this topic is typical political sniping.
My comment was not about concerns related to opening the ANWR to oil drilling.
I will add that it is typical GOP to look first to a short-term solution that could compromise or even destroy a pristine ecosystem, of which there are very few left on the planet. I’m not saying there’s no chance it couldn’t work without damaging the ecosystem, but it is a short-term solution that does not really help resolve any of the direct and immediate problems contributing to global warming.
ETA: It’s ANWR, not “ANWAR.”
stop posting quotes my-shit-doesn’t-stink-Bloomberg and deal with reality. “global” subsidies on oil is a non-argument for producing it locally. We pump the oil, we tax the oil. It is literally that simple. We simply can’t do without it right now and it’s beyond retarded to give the money to someone else.
It’s looking increasingly likely that Congress will force approval of the Keystone pipeline, over the Administration’s opposion. Opposition to the pipeline is short-sighted anyway. The oil is absolutely going to be used, if not by us, then by the Chinese. Options to leave the oil in the ground simply do not exist.
Given that, the question becomes: do we build the pipeline, thus importing more oil from a friendly country, thus increasing our national security, plus creating US jobs in the process; or do we let the opportunity pass and continue to buy oil from people halfway around the world who hate us?
I largely oppose increasing US oil capacity because that will make oil cheaper. I want it more expensive to give an economic push to alternatives (like, uh, nuclear!).
we’re already drilling there. Some jackass in Washington drew an arbitrary line on the edge of the current oil field and declared it extra special. It’s not. drive another 20 miles East and That’s where the additional drilling will occur to the already established pipeline that runs 800 miles down the state of Alaska. You remember that pipeline, the one that increased the population of animals in the vicinity of it.
And it’s typical to for Dems to offer nothing useful except to run the debt up. Congrats. It’s 17 trillion dollars worth of solutions we’ll never be able to spend money on.
AW, poor thing, I typed an acronym wrong. Tell it to the VP in charge of speaking English correctly.
Great but we still need to drive cars. You can’t give a Volt away because it takes too long to charge and isn’t worth the cost to consumers. Maybe we should subsidizing a luxury electric car as a back up plan. Oh wait, we did. I’ve seen exactly one and it was for display purposes.
Add to my previous list: a roll-back of diesel car EPA standards to Europe’s so we can import cars already in production that get 65 mpg. Don’t have to invent a goddamn thing. It’s right there waiting for us at the stroke of pen. Cost Zero. Increase in fuel economy… better than hybrids at a cheaper price. A car people can afford right now that helps the economy right now and co2 reduction right now.
That translates in reality to you not wanting to deal with the cites.
Can you quote me on when I ever said that taxes should not be levied to the US makers? It is really hard to make meaningful discussion when you are going for the straw.
Very true. I’d also like a substantial increase in gasoline taxes to give people an economic incentive to drive less (or get higher-mileage cars). And I agree with your desire to get more diesel but is that a regulation issue? Diesel cars are available in the US now (I owned a VW Jetta TDI); I thought it was largely a cultural issue.
It’s a fact that the debt increased more under GOP presidents in the past 50 years.
You’ve typed it wrong every post of yours in this thread where you mention it. But perhaps I shouldn’t be shocked that you prefer ignorance over knowledge?
Congress produces the budget.
There’s a handful compared to Europe because of the EPA regs in the United States. But I assumed you knew that.
Link to the full report at the US National Climate Assessment site can be found here.
There’s obviously a great deal of overlap with the IPCC reports, although this one focuses on climate effects specifically within the US. I had some hope that those naysayers who had come to regard the IPCC as some sort of subversive agency of UN “world government” – due to having that hammered into their brains by Fox News and right-wing talk radio – would perhaps be more accepting of a report written by several hundred of their own nation’s best scientists as part of a comprehensive research program on global change and endorsed by their own government. The National Academy of Sciences had already done this several times, to no effect, but one can always hope!
No such luck. Last I saw there were about 27,000 comments on the CNN website, and about half appeared to be from illiterate imbeciles who apparently dropped out of English spelling and grammar at about the same time that they dropped out of science class – I’d say roughly about Grade 3. The message of these erstwhile students of science is that the entire subject of climate change as a result of human activities is a Hoax that has been Proven Wrong and we need to Wake Up. This would be funny in a distasteful sort of way – the way that it’s distasteful to laugh at the intellectually impaired – if it wasn’t for that fact that climate change denial is one of the major planks of the Republican Party.
The disastrous consequences of rapid climate change are only beginning to be fully appreciated. Just as an example, just yesterday, in the current issue of Nature, a new research article appeared, which was summed up as follows:
As I mentioned, I bought and owned a diesel car in the US. Regulations apparently didn’t stop me. My understanding is that the biggest thing holding back diesel is public perception but I can imagine that regulations don’t make it easier.
And as I mentioned before you can’t buy the vast majority of European diesels because they don’t meet EPA standards. We can’t get the high mileage cars that get better fuel economy than hybrids. Your diesel doesn’t come close to the mileage available in Europe. If the mileage isn’t higher then the extra cost of the engine isn’t worth it.
The 50-state light-duty vehicle limit for emissions of nitrogen oxides is 0.07 grams per mile. In Western Europe, the limit is 0.29.
I believe the reason we don’t have the extremely high-mileage cars here that they have in Europe is because they are small and low-powered which just doesn’t fly here in the land of the V-8. Gas is too cheap.
I will agree, however, that if regulations really are preventing a significant number of high-mileage cars from coming to the US then they should probably be removed.
The President produces the budget.
The Congress responds to the budget request, and may pass budget resolutions. But:
And finally:
Thus, the President has the first and the final say on the budget, unless Congress can override a veto, which I think has never happened with regard to the budget. I could be wrong about that last point, but it’s at best very rare.
The V8 ceased being the family car engine a long time ago. Most cars sold today are front wheel drive and that means a 4 or 6 cylinder. 4 cylinders now easily produce 150 to 200 hp and V6’s now produce over 300 hp. The new Mazda-6 4 cylinder claims 180 hp and 40 mpg. A diesel has to beat that to make the extra cost of it viable. Ford has a 65 mpg diesel right now in Europe and that is far better than a hybrid.
And yes, I agree they should lower the nox emissions and let the diesels in. That was my original point.
Congress makes the budget. I’m not going to argue with you. The president can suggest his ass in to next tuesday but it’s Congress that creates the budget. That’s where you get all the pork barrel bills. Everybody wants their piece of the pie and they agree to each other’s pork.
look who shuts down the budget because of excess spending. The Republicans.