The SDMB mock election Debate #3: Global Warming, Energy Policy, Green Issues & Tech.

Welcome to the third SMDB multiparty 2008 campaign debate.

Today we will debate and discuss your policies concerning some environmental & energy issues with technology as a rider. This would be the thread concerning Nuclear Power, Kyoto and even Peta.

We welcome the candidate to post their positions & solutions and be prepared to defend them. We welcome posters to ask questions related to this debate and challenge listed methods.

The revised list of debates:
Thread 1 Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran & Pakistan.
Thread 2 Economy, Health care, Social Security & Poverty
Thread 3 Global Warming, Energy Policy, Green Issues & Technology
Thread 4: Education & Science & Space
Thread 5: Military & Veteran’s affairs and speak to your stand on the US use of torture and waterboarding.
Thread 6: The question of Gay Rights/Marriage, Civil Rights, The candidates position on abortion and if this will play into his or hers judicial appointments.
Thread 7: Foreign policy, highlighting China, Russia, Cuba & Israel and whatever seems important to people.
Thread 8: Ethics & Campaign Reform
Thread 9: Homeland Security, The Patriot Act, Domestic Spying & Immigration

Fuel prices are at an all time high. I believe that oil can be found by off shore drilling. Especially off the Atlantic Coast and in the Gulf of Mexico. Would you be in favor of offshore drilling to find new resources? What would you say to the environmentalists that fear for the fish? If you oppose off-shore drilling, where can we find new resources?

SSG Schwartz

So, when are you guys going to work for energy independence: ending the US’ crippling dependency on foreign energy? You’re hemmorhaging dollars all over the world paying for the stuff, and the dependency puts you at the mercy of Unsavoury Foreign Powers.

Barring some sudden new Miracle Source of Energy[sup]TM[/sup], the US needs to reduce its per-capita consumption fast. You could let a budget collapse reduce demand by impoverishing your people, or you could take the smart way out: become more efficient.

There is so much you could do. Just as one example, housing can be built that requires little heating and cooling, even in your colder climates. There’s the German Passivhaus. or the Earthship, developed by one of your own!

Well, this thread should be interesting.

The best resources are conservation, increased efficiency through technological innovation, and alternative energy. We don’t need to be drilling for more oil when we know that the main problem is not a lack of oil but the effects that burning oil causes. What we should investing in are technologies to reduce our dependence on oil (and other fossil fuels).

I assume you are representing a party, but I haven’t followed the threads enough to know which one. Tell me what those effects are that will effect me. Explain to me how new technologies will lower the cost of fuel for my car.

I know we should be less dependent on oil, but when will we have the alternative?

SSG Schwartz

I think he is speaking as a science advisor to the Green Party or any party that wants to stop AGW. :wink:

Global Warming, Energy Policy, Green Issues & Technology

This is my area of chief concern. I’m a conservationist first & foremost. Whatever we do with our economy, with our natural resource base, has to be done with an eye toward sustainability–which means, not toward collapse & disintegration.

As to global warming:

There are still some who say they’re not sure it’s happening, or they’re not sure man is causing it, or they’re not sure it can be stopped. Fine. You’re not sure. I’m not sure either. we’re not the government scientists being paid to collect all the data & make the best possible judgement. We have those, however, & those scientists are sure–sure of all these things. So the best thing you can do, the best thing any of us can do, is listen, & follow their recommendations. The price we pay if we follow their recommendations & they prove wrong is as nothing to the price our civilization will pay, our planet itself will pay, if we do nothing & they prove right. And they are those who are paid to be right, so we should listen to them. We have to.

This may mean cuts in our energy usage, & new fuel standards. It will almost certainly mean an international effort toward reforestation & studies of oceanic algae, because it is only through photosynthesis that we can put a downward pressure on CO2 levels.

As to energy policy.

We use more energy per capita than any other nation on earth. Obviously, that’s not necessary. I will do my best to get the USA into an international treaty to govern energy usage, so long as that treaty is reasonably constructive & workable. Kyoto was a good start. We can improve on it from there.

Domestically, I will push for greater use of wind & solar energy, as well as alternative energy sources for steel & aluminum production, which are enormous energy hogs. Iceland is setting up aluminum production using geothermal energy. I hope to form a partnership with them & see how much of that we can do in this country.

As for conservation & environmental issues:

While Al Gore has been raising the alarm on global warming, our world has been lurching toward ruin on other fronts. We have–simply to name the most urgent–a planetwide collapse of global fish stocks; a water usage crisis in this country; & massive deforestation in the tropics, the “lungs of the planet.”

All of these problems are driven by economic problems. Environmental reform is not separable from economic reform. The New England fisherman who overfishes to the point of risking the extinction of his livelhood is driven by economic concerns. The Great Plains town which suddenly finds its nourishing aquifer being depleted after the factory farm came in does so due to a lack of strong governance which could have stopped that agribusiness expansion.

And so I come back to this: We need a strong government that practices sound & uncompromising economic management because we need social & environmental sustainability. If your business is simply going to destroy its natural resource base, desertify the land it sits on, & leave your employees to starve in 50 years, you need to change your business or it will be taken from you. Those who move into an area & pillage its future shall forfeit their investment.

Stronger words than we’re used to hearing on environmental policy. But the time when conservation could ever take a back seat to the selfish & private concerns of the market is over & done.

We need environmental laws with teeth. No more shall a company’s self-reporting be sufficient for the EPA to judge them in compliance. We must have regulatory & policing powers for our regulatory & policing bodies. And we need to consider the crimes committed against our children’s future, against our nation’s future, to be real crimes. For the polluters who have ruined your water supply, a fine is not enough. They must face the forfeiture of their very companies, that they not be able to do it again.

foolsguinea and any other candidates:

What is your position on increasing nuclear power generation?

What should we do with current and future waste for nuclear power plants?

How would you address the actual infrastructure of our power distribution system?

For the Libertarian Party

Global Warming, Energy Policy, Green Issues & Technology

I believe that the last item is the key to all the others. Without a technological edge, I believe citizens of the United States will be at the mercy of governments of other nations. And I believe that the key to expanding technology is entrepreneurship with the incentive of profit in a capitalist economy free of coercion and fraud.

It has seldom been the case that government has led the people in the direction they should go. Rather, it has usually been the other way around, on issues like slavery, women’s sufferage, child labor, and civil rights. As things stand, Congress moves when it believes movement is politically expedient. I believe that Americans will lead our Congress in the way that it should go, if only they were free from Congressional burdens like unfair legislation and frivolous regulation.

It is the people who are demanding a more green energy policy, less dependence on foreign resources, and studious consideration of the effects of global climate change. Let us therefore make our people free to explore these issues. Let us make it easy for new businesses to start up, so that there will arise a Bill Gates of energy and a Steve Jobs of environmental protection and restoration. Making the marketplace hospitable to fair competition will ensure that the best minds are seen and heard, and that people have economically viable choices for energy.

Long before government even gave it a thought, private citizens were forming organizations for protecting the environment and fighting the coercive practices of big business partnering with government to take over land and spoil it. Our nation’s biggest polluter is our own government. I think it would be in the best interest of the United States to reduce the size and scope of our government so that it can pollute less and protect rights and property more.

Global Warming, Energy Policy, Green Issues & Technology

People come up to me all the time and ask me how they - an individual - can help with issues like Global Warming or living green, or reducing their negative footprint on the environment - my answer to them is always the same. Support local initiatives that promote sustainable living, farmers markets, school/hospital recycling programs, green living habits and more.

The average US citizen is not going to rise to the green czar level and become the Bill Gates of environmental change and awareness. But I guarantee the person who does will have their roots from a local initiative supported by local people. Teaching the children of our land to live a healthy lifestyle doesn’t just mean recycling their diet coke cans, it means fostering their own personal environmental ethic - having an appreciation of the natural world around them. This core attitude will lead effortlessly to a more earth centered lifestyle when they are adults - which will eventually lead to our growing an entirely new crop of green movers and shakers in our government. It is already happening - slowly.

Supporting grassroots organizations and boycotting the use of fossil fuels will not happen over night, but teaching environmental awareness in schools and universities as a requirement and not an elective is a beginning.

I firmly believe we need to invest fervently in alternative fuel sources, we need to work with global change organizations to build a sustainable future. The united states can drive the initiative by investing in home grown fuels - We don’t need to undercut our corn supply or wheat to make bio-fuels, we can invest in better hydrogren technology - run our Suburbans on a gallon of sea water…

When run correctly nuclear power is a clean, renewable, efficient source of power. I am actually for nuclear power generation or cogeneration plants springing up all over. The caveat is what to do with the waste. Civilian reactors produce a vastly different byproduct then what is produced when making weapons grade nuclear material…Subductive waste disposal is the most viable means of disposing radioactive materials, but as f yet this methodology has not been perfected.

Addressing the actual infrastructure of our power distribution system is something sustainable living scientists have been working on for years. I don’t know many people who can effectively live off grid - I do know a few - but the average person who consumes vast quantities of energy each year is usually not willing to make such amenities dissappear like washing machines and hair dryers. Government sponsored energy reduction programs are more than likely out of the question with our current system, if I were in charge I would invest in a radically different energy distribution system than is already in place. Bringing new technologies to the forefront of peoples minds and allowing new technologies to be tested on a much larger scale would be key in seeing whether or not they will work for a sustainable future. If you could run your home on solar and wind power alone wouldn’t you do so?

I would make it affordable for the average Joe to have solar panels, wind generation, geothermal technologies available to them.

I’ll write more when I have a little more time.

Then again this topic will hopefully be moot when Q.E.D or one of our other trusted teemings comes up with a cold fusion machine. :slight_smile:

I would ask Congress to repeal any legislation that prohibits or arbitrarily inhibits the generation of nuclear power and replace it with legislation that severely punishes companies that harm citizens, including criminal penalties against corporate officers. I would ask executive agencies, like OSHA, to do the same. I don’t want OSHA telling people whether they must have plastic or metal waste baskets; I want OSHA looking at company activities for fraud and coercion.

I believe that nuclear waste should be stored on private property, and in such a manner as to guarantee the safety of its neighbors.

I do not believe it is the job of a president — or of government, for that matter — to micromanage distribution systems. I believe the ideas I’ve already proposed, of providing free people a way to work together in peace and trust, are the best ways to encourage maximum efficiency of private enterprise.

Thank you for your answers.

I have a few follow-ups for Liberal and others.

You said, “I believe that nuclear waste should be stored on private property, and in such a manner as to guarantee the safety of its neighbors.”

This is fairly vague and leaves open questions of storage techniques, inspections & liability. When it comes to nuclear waste, it does not seem good intentions and fines are sufficient for careless handling. The stakes are very high for both the health of those nearby and the reputation of the industry as a whole. Could you address these concerns any further?
The power distribution systems cross corporations and can be seriously improved by some of the newest technologies. The improvements can save a large amount of electricity. The upfront costs are very high for these upgrades but could represent one of the “12 pie slices” needed to curb Global Warming. It will also have long term cost savings but over a period of 20-40 years not a short term savings.

This appears on the surface to me, to be a technology that will need a government push or coordination. Is something like this a place where you feel the Federal Government can and should step into the breech?

Thank you for that question, What Exit?. I’ll be happy to address your concerns further. I tried to be specific by using the word “guarantee”. It is indeed what I mean. Fines alone are not enough. I believe that pollution is vandalism and ought to be punished by criminal statute. Officers of corporations who pollute ought to be held accountable for both their crimes against their neighbors and their crimes (of fraud) against their shareholders, who reasonably ought to be expected to believe that their officers will operate within in the law. Their operations should be closed, if necessary, to ensure that they can harm no one.

Establishing, enforcing, and interpreting the law is how government should get involved. It should not get involved by drawing up the specs for containment facilities. I think the people who design containment facilities should be scientists and engineers, not lawmakers and bureaucrats. We cannot have our cake and eat it too. If we are to move forward, we cannot tie the hands of entrepreneurs with regulations that may or may not make scientific sense, and that take years to put together as an entangled quagmire of compromises. At the same time, entrepreneurs should know that the risks they take are not just monetary but are a threat to their liberty as well.

I feel it would be better if the federal government would step out of the breech. As Samuel Broder, former researcher for the National Institutes of Health and former Director of the National Cancer Institute put it, “If it were up to the NIH to cure Polio through a centrally directed program you’d have the best iron lung in the world but not a polio vaccine.” Polio was instead cured by a man, Jonas Salk, working essentially alone.

I believe, as I said before, that technology is best developed in a free and fair market, where people are rewarded for success and where failure has personal consequences. When central governments have tried to develop technology, they have failed. Soviet technology was notoriously unreliable. They produced a car, the Zaporozhets, that the owner had to grasp and shake from side to side to mix the oil and gas. They produced a nuclear facility, Chernoble, that leaked like a tea bag. Lets untie the hands of our brilliant people and see what they can do.

I too am for a increase in the use of Nuclear power, and as far as the government may control that I would be very willing to aid companies that are involved in these businesses.

The biggest problem I can see with this issue is that what is environmentally friendly is often more expensive, or at least seemingly more expensive. On one hand, we could set down mandates that such measures be used - but this would mean the people would be forced to use them. On the other, we could let the people do what they want - however, even with those who say they are for environmentally friendlier measures, the amount they are personally willing to do can be significantly smaller.

As an attempt at a compromise, I would be willing to make it easier for companies that do develop more environmentally friendly/pollution light measures, in the hope that they would pass on these savings to their customers.

As far as oil goes, i’m pretty sure that 99% of Americans, regardless of their political orientation, would prefer we are less dependent on foreign sources. This should be the rallying call of the environmentalist energy groups; moving on with such measures would mean an increase in jobs, less outsourcing, lower gas prices, and allow us to be less than diplomatically respective to those who do not deserve our diplomatic respect. Working to aid the environment helps animals; and we are among them.

This is not true. The government, per your cite, is connected to 80/225 of Superfund sites. That is not most, and as you know, Superfund accounts for a relatively small amount of total pollution.

With all due respect to my colleague, the tallest bar on the graph is the federal government, and its caption states that it has been connected to 224 sites. Here is a detailed listing (with map) of all sites linked by the EPA to the federal government. I hope that my colleague will apologize for his insinuation that I lied.

I made no such insinuation. I merely stated that your statement was incorrect. And it is, though not in the way I thought. I mis-read the cite as saying 80, not 80%. It is the case the the feds are connected to 80% of Superfund sites. But the bigger problem remains: Superfund sites account for a very small amount of total pollution.

I would also note that the feds bare primary responsibility, according to your cite, for only 36 sites. The way CERCLA works, the government has indirect liability if it bought property that was previous contaminated.

I’m sorry for my less than diligent attention to my campaign, here.

A brief statement of my position on these general issues: while I certainly believe that the global warming is a real phenomenon, and that it is highly likely to be caused or excacerbated by human activity, I don’t believe that we, alone, can solve the issue, and that placing our country at a disadvantage by unilaterally imposing restrictions is an utterly meaningless gesture. I believe we need to seek world-wide technology solutions to the issue.

And these solutions – in fact, all “green” solutions – need to make business sense. That is, in assessing all issues of environmental impact, I find that many of the folks in the various environmental movements tend to offer an “environment first!” view – one that places an inordinately high proce tag on not disturbing the “natural” order of things. These same people don’t object to a beaver dam flooding a forest and creating a pond or swamp, but would go ballistic if a construction project had the same effect. This is, quite simply, foolish: man is at the very least an animal, just as entitled as the beaver to change his environment to help himself. Blessed as we are with a bit more foresight and understanding than your average beaver (well… most of us, anyway) I agree we should look at consequences of our actions – but with a realistic eye towards weighing the benefit versus the cost to the environment. We cannot foolishly dismiss any cost to the environment; neither can we rank the environment’s undisturbed sanctity as necessary at any price.

Esteemed colleague, would not the interests of the US population be better served by an external QA of these facilities before they went live? As we well know, the judical system can be tied up for a very long time, often to the detriment of the neighbours of such a facility in the meantime.

Further, would you agree with the characterization of your position that the handling of nuclear waste should fall to private contractors? If not, in what part am I in error?