Heating costs, thread continuation and thoughts:

[archimedes]

Thoughtful response and interesting numbers.    I,  of course disagree  .  There are several errors in logic and economic basics that you have fatally overlooked.

Don't really have time at the moment to full reply.  But a couple of quick points.

1)  How can a gas tax that only affects (by your numbers) 25% of the energy consumption market have the type of effect on consumption that it necessary?  I'll answer that for you - it can't

2) $1 trillion dollars in middle east wars for oil,   divided by 300 million Americans is $3,333 per person or $13,333 for a family of four.  (not to even mention all the casualties,  of course).

3) It doesn't matter whether climate change is real or not.  Our dependence on Carbon based energy has an enormous,  and deadly, cost.

4) It isn't about income redistribution.  The rebate part of the plan is irrelevant to it's effectiveness at reducing carbon consumption and fostering the growth of alternative energy sources.   The rebate part only makes it more politically palatable.  You could simple reduce everyone's income tax rate and/or payroll tax rate,  it really doesn't matter.

5)  I think you're projecting a social agenda where none exists.

[dug]

I know I'll probably take a lot of heat (har har) for this but I suppose I really don't care.

I think a lot of people have taken a cynical attitude towards global warming, climate change, whatever because dishonest politicians (is there any other kind?) world wide hellbent on establishing a New World Order have exploited this potential disaster to their advantage. While I can understand the overall disgust in this regard, and I share it, it should come as no surprise to anyone that any disaster- real or perceived, as well as any great triumph have always been used and abused for political gain.

Many folks get a good laugh out of all the chicken littles claiming that the sky is falling citing a particularly cold winter as evidence that climate change is not happening, but of course climate change is happening. It always has and always will change, just as entire species and ecosystems have come and gone in unison with the changes.

A records indicate that average surface and ocean temperatures have risen significantly for the last 90 years or so and reliable scientists have a good indication of what might happen if the trend continues. The fact that the rising temperatures and Co2 levels correlate rather precisely to the industrial machine revolution seems solid evidence that there could be a connection, and that maybe humans do have a part in it.

I am not 100% convinced that climate change at this time is human caused, maybe hovering around 50%. A toss up. But I do feel it is a serious enough threat and there is sufficient evidence that politics aside, we owe it to our children to give the matter serious weight.

[archimedes]

I am not 100% convinced that climate change at this time is human caused, maybe hovering around 50%. A toss up. But I do feel it is a serious enough threat and there is sufficient evidence that politics aside, we owe it to our children to give the matter serious weight.

Dug,  I couldn't agree more.

It doesn't matter whether Climate change is,  or is not happening.  It's really irrelevant.  There are people who feel passionately on both sides,  and they will not be moved from their position.  If this thread turns into one of those arguments about whether it's real or not,  an argument that never goes anywhere,   I'm outta here.

There are ample enough reasons for us to break our dependence on carbon based fuels without considering climate change.  And if human caused climate change turns out to real then that's just a bonus benefit.

Right now our countries primary source of revenue is income tax.  Which makes no sense since we want to encourage people to make as much money as possible.  If we want to reduce carbon,  which will benefit the country in numerous ways,  then we should tax carbon and un-tax income.  That shift would have to be gradual over time but it's simple enough to do.

As an added bonus,  most of the potential replace fuel sources would come from here in the US - creating domestic jobs.  What ever source of energy was able to compete most efficienctly against the newer higher price carbon would flourish.  It's a market based solution.

Because of some left wing politicians association with the issue of climate change many people have a knee-jerk reaction against any attempt to curb carbon emmisions.  But this is to the detriment of the country and our children and grandchildren.  It's not a political issue

I encourge people to read this brief article.  It states that the carbon tax is supported by fiscally conservative Republicans,  including Art Laffer,  who was Ronald Reagans economic adviser and one of the most economically conservative people in the country.
www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/05/13/68130/republican-lawmakers-back-carbon.html

[Shawn B]

First I don't believe in human-caused climate change/global warming. In fact I have been to presentations where a atmospheric physicist makes the argument that temperature increases PUSH Co2 levels higher, rather than Co2 INCREASING temperature.

But I do think that it is important to research and implement alternative energy. The research and development of new energy sources is going to be expensive and take years (decades). The three sources of renewable energy we have in place now are not good enough to fully take over powering the Nation's electric grid.

Solar---unless your in the desert Southwest, Hawaii, Florida, not a real viable option for powering high giga-watt grids

Wind---more suitable and widespread than solar, high level of maintenance per mega-watt (compared to coal, natural gas fired plants), takes thousands of windmills to equal the output of a large coal or gas fired plant, each windmill takes around one acre each; in a lot of areas this is valuable and productive farmland, higher rate of gov't tax-payer subsidies.

Nuclear---highest level of output, highest level of energy versus land use, comparable maintenance to coal and natural gas plants, potential for major safety issues while operating, problem with storing spent "fuel" rods----nobody wants them in their back yard...with good reason.

What's the answer? Maybe some kind of Hydrogen plant capable of producing high mega-watts. Would it be safe storing this much Hydrogen to run a plant this big?

I personally don't see any alternative energy option that is currently in the "public spotlight" replacing coal or natural gas fired plants in providing the majority of the Nation's energy needs for many, many decades.

The grid itself will probably fail, before the current energy sources do. Keep in mind there is something like 300 years worth of coal in Montana and Wyoming alone.

Right now and for the foreseeable future the "economy" could not withstand any new energy tax, especially gasoline or diesel tax. The proposed $1/gallon tax would put things worse than they were at the end of 2008 early 2009. Remember a gasoline or diesel price increase trickles down through the whole economy, and some of the increase is felt immediately some takes a full 12-18 months to trickle down.

[Sassy]

While your suggestions of researching & implementing alternative energy are great, did you or anyone else look at the links I posted?  There's a lot of manipulation of the weather going on that is causing changes throughout the world.  What about that?

"The initial premise is wrong on two accounts. First, there is absolutely no evidence that any human-caused climate crisis exists."  First it was "global warming" now they're calling it "climate change" - the history of the earth is all about climate change...    Yes, humans have polluted but normal everyday pollution has not changed the weather - volcanoes cause more pollution.  Now w/weather modification in the troposphere & HAARP experiments in microwaving the plasma in the ionosphere & sending out ELF & ULF waves, I guess I have to say we are affecting the climate...


Welcome to the TAP Home Page!

Much of the science that had been planned for the Tropospheric Aerosol Program (TAP) will in the future be conducted under the Department of Energy's Atmospheric Science Program, which, beginning in Fiscal Year 2005, will focus on radiative forcing of climate change by atmospheric aerosols. Interested readers are referred to the ASP web site and to the documents accessible from that page.

Because much of the science that had been planned for TAP coincides with planned research in the Atmospheric Science Program, this page is being maintained to provide background technical information.
http://www.asp.bnl.gov/tap.html

HAARP  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAARP  
http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/
http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/bj1203.html

When Gore left office in January 2001, he was said to have a net worth in the neighborhood of $2 million. A mere eight years later, estimates are that he is now worth about $100 million. It seems it's easy being green, at least for some.

Gore has his lectures and speeches, his books, a hit movie and Oscar, and a Nobel Prize. But Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., was curious about how a man dedicated to saving the planet could get so wealthy so quickly. She sought out investment advice we all could use in a shaky economy.

Last May, we noted that Big Al had joined the venture capital group Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers the previous September. On May 1, 2008, the firm announced a $500 million investment in maturing green technology firms called the Green Growth Fund.

http://www.kansasprogress.com/wordpress/index.php/2009/05/09/cap-and-trade-al-gores-cash-cow/

Fuelling controversy that Gore lied about his profiteering from cap-and-trade
Al Gore invests millions to make billions in cap-and-trade software

By Steve Milloy  Wednesday, June 3, 2009

Al Gore's venture capital firm has invested $6 million in a software company that stands to make billions of dollars from cap-and-trade regulation — further fueling controversy that Gore lied about his profiteering from cap-and-trade to Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and the House Energy and Environment Subcommittee during testimony in April.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/11607

BTW, we've done our part in reducing our use of carbon - although what is the cost of producing the solar panels & wind generator?  We are totally off-grid, use solar & wind generator.  Our cabin has been built w/bug kill logs, http://countryplans.com/smf/index.php?topic=151.0  Glenn milled all the boards himself, most of our floors are made w/clay, sand & straw, although we are going to the CBRI floor http://countryplans.com/smf/index.php?topic=10293.0 which uses significantly less cement.  We have built into the ground to reduce heating costs (wood stove) & do not use air conditioning in the summer, just a fan.  We have our own vegetable gardens, fruit & nut trees & are raising our own chickens for eggs & the cows keeps the grass on the property well mowed which reduces fire damage & also fertilizes the ground.  

But, in order to get to this stage it took machinery to dig the hole & make the roads.  I have no idea what the manufacturing of solar panels entails - the "carbon footprint" I hate that phrase    And BTW, China is cracking down on the exportation of "rare earth minerals" that so much of our technology is reliant on.  A couple years ago I posted a link to the extensive pollution caused by the mining of these minerals - here's a link  http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/july-dec09/china_12-14.html - there's a lot more articles than just that one.

Quote from article LINDSEY HILSUM: It doesn't look very green. Rare earth processing in China is a messy, dangerous, polluting business. It uses toxic chemicals, acids, sulfates, ammonia. The workers have little or no protection.

But, without rare earth, Copenhagen means nothing. You buy a Prius hybrid car and think you're saving the planet. But each motor contains a kilo of neodymium and each battery more than 10 kilos of lanthanum, rare earth elements from China.

Green campaigners love wind turbines, but the permanent magnets used to manufacture a 3-megawatt turbine contain some two tons of rare earth. The head of China's Rare Earth Research Institute shows me one of those permanent magnets. He's well aware of the issues.

We still have the effects from the sun, the volcanoes - one just erupted in the Phillipines - the changes in the magnetic poles over time - all natural phenomenon and then as I posted earlier in the rant, the human manipulation of the troposphere & ionosphere...  

If we got rid of the Federal Reserve we wouldn't be paying them interest to print money out of thin air & we'd have trillions of dollars to do research on alternative energy.  Why not unclassify Tesla's research for implementation - he did some amazing things besides discovering AC/DC electricity.  

[ScottA]

One more time so no one misses it. Carbon taxes are a SCAM! Global warming is a SCAM! debating who should be taxed what is pointless and a total waste of time and likely a hoped for response to keep attention away from the SCAMMERS! There is an agenda. That agenda is global governance. Carbon taxes will fund that agenda not help the enviroment. The council of rome anounced exactly this plan back in the 1970's. Anyone who belives this nonsense is brainwashed.

There is no oil shortage, there never was. The whole oil shortage BS was a scam to keep energy prices high. The scam started 30 years ago and continues to this day. There is no peak oil blah blah blah. They did not invade the middle east for the oil they invaded to keep the oil off the market. There is too much oil, that's why they want it off the market. The US has within it's borders enough oil to last for over 100 years but they won't let anyone drill for it because they want to keep the prices up so the Arabians can buy our debt. That's what funds the federal deficit. That's what has funded it for the last 20 years.

WAKE UP!~

[MountainDon]

The US has within it's borders enough oil to last for over 100 years

What then?   Easily recoverable, as measured in dollars to extract, is diminishing. Nothing on or in the earth is infinite. It is my understanding that a huge amount of the oil the US has is contained within shale. I for one would not look favorably upon grinding up vast portions of CO and WY to extract the resource from the shale. IIRC, the process of retorting oil from shale somehow expands the volume of the waste to almost twice the volume of the rock extracted. I guess we could pile that up to make some new mountains.

[ScottA]

Let me put it in simpler terms. If oil was so scarce why is it so cheap? Why does carbon need to be taxed to dicourage it's use? If it really was so scarce the price would limit it's use and there would be no need for the government to get involved. The simple answer is that it's not scarce at all. The current price is a result of the governments intervention in the middle east. How much Iraq oil is on the market? Not much. If we where there for the oil they would be pumping it by now. They aren't.

[dug]

Carbon taxes are a SCAM!

Agreed!

Global warming is a SCAM!

Maybe just part of earth's natural cycles, and definitely it is abused for power and profit but how can you deny that the earth is currently getting warmer?

Nothing on or in the earth if infinite

An obvious, but ignored truth.

I am sure that oil prices and stated availability are, and always have been artificially manipulated for fun and profit but the current trend of infinite expansion coupled with a world that is not (expanding) does not jive with any math I am familiar with. My gripe is that in our world oil = money and power- it is literally what makes the world function. Understandably there are people who would very much like this to continue for as long as it can be milked, repercussions be damned.

I agree there is no current viable alternative for power to run our modern world, but I think there could be, or could have been if it were pursued with any sort of genuine gumption instead of dismissed and presented as some green hippy pipe dream. I think if you would have told people living 300 years ago that black goo was going to make machinery come alive and do our work for us it would have sounded pretty far fetched even to the most visionary scientist.

I feel that we humans would be capable of much better if money/ power/ politics were not the pinnacle of achievement.

[ScottA]

Correct on all counts Dug. People, all people are being suppressed by those in power so they can stay in power. There are viable alternatives to oil but they won't see the light of day so long as there is money to be made selling oil and by extention gaining power. The human race is capable of so much better if we where allowed to evolve in a natural way but we aren't. We are manipulated and brainwashed at every turn. Who gave us the present system that is deemed to be so evil? The same people who are telling you we are all evil and need to pay to fix it.

[Shawn B]

Scott I agree with your post about the Council of Rome. According to Lindsay Williams there is enough oil in Alaska to last the U.S. 200 years. In Eastern Montana, N.W. Wyoming, and Western Dakota's there is a oil formation know as the Bakaan (sp) with another 100-150 years worth.

I wish the U.S. would be more like Canada in it's natural resource use. The Canadians are not scared to go after and use their oil, gas, coal, trees, etc. Why should the U.S. let a soft socialist nation like Canada lead it in energy production ? Nothing against Canada I like visiting up there in Alberta.

What about coal gasification ?

[dug]

In the Bakkan oil shale fields there is a large discrepancy between the amount of oil there and the amount that is recoverable. There are very few untapped sweet spots in this vast area and most of the oil can only be extracted using hydraulic fracturing, a process that is handicapped from the get-go with a very low EROI (energy return on investment). Fracking  also uses millions of gallons of water (soon to be more valuable than oil IMO) laced with lethal chemicals including benzine to accomplish it's task at the expense of every living creature in the vicinity. Not quite the same as sticking a straw in the sand as it is done in Saudi Arabia.

Most sources I have read quote in the neighborhood somewhere south of 4 billion barrels of recoverable oil in that area, or about enough to supply the US for 6 to 8 months.

Not worth it.

[archimedes]

I guess the oil companies and oil dictators must have heard this conversation.  They decided to impose a $1 (or $2) a gallon "tax" on gas for us.

Of course all the proceeds of that "tax" will go to them rather than us.   The price goes up and the country gets no benefit (it actually hurts our economy).  Funny how things seem to play out that way over and over again,    oh well.  

[Native_NM]

If it lowers demand it helps the environment, right?

[ScottA]

Back in the 80's I used to hang around with some well drillers. All they did was drill wells, measure the output and cap them. I asked them what was with capping them. They told me that the company just wanted to know how much oil they had and didn't care about pumping it because they didn't need it. There are thousands of well like this all over Oklahoma. I'm sure the same is true for other states. All the babble about fracturing is just to make people go along with the slow drilling in the US program the EPA has had going for a long time. The real name of the EPA is the "Extraction Prevention Administration".

[Native_NM]

1)  How can a gas tax that only affects (by your numbers) 25% of the energy consumption market have the type of effect on consumption that it necessary?  I'll answer that for you - it can't

2) $1 trillion dollars in middle east wars for oil,   divided by 300 million Americans is $3,333 per person or $13,333 for a family of four.  (not to even mention all the casualties,  of course).

3) It doesn't matter whether climate change is real or not.  Our dependence on Carbon based energy has an enormous,  and deadly, cost.

4) It isn't about income redistribution.  The rebate part of the plan is irrelevant to it's effectiveness at reducing carbon consumption and fostering the growth of alternative energy sources.   The rebate part only makes it more politically palatable.  You could simple reduce everyone's income tax rate and/or payroll tax rate,  it really doesn't matter.

5)  I think you're projecting a social agenda where none exists.

2) Your view on the war is a political, and independent of the intent of this thread or discusssion.  Anyone who believes the war is about oil should be marching on the Capitol and demending for higher gas taxes, which would lower demand and our dependence on foreign oil, and eliminating the need to go to war for it.

3)  Climate change is real.  The cause of it is not certain.  Hard science tells us that 10,000 years ago much of northern North America was under a sheet of ice.  New Mexico and Texas were once under water, as were large parts of Utah and Arizona.  A good 99.9% of of this change ocurred before the industrial age and burning of fossil fuels.

4) If you have to pay people at the expense of others to make it palatable, it is not equitable.  Spin it how you want, it is about income redistribution.

5) My agenda is environmental, and applies to all people regardless of socio-economic standing.  Every human has a carbon footprint. 

[Native_NM]

Back in the 80's I used to hang around with some well drillers. All they did was drill wells, measure the output and cap them. I asked them what was with capping them. They told me that the company just wanted to know how much oil they had and didn't care about pumping it because they didn't need it. There are thousands of well like this all over Oklahoma. I'm sure the same is true for other states. All the babble about fracturing is just to make people go along with the slow drilling in the US program the EPA has had going for a long time. The real name of the EPA is the "Extraction Prevention Administration".

Nobody really knows the true supply, not even the oil companies.  Bill Gates probably does not know the true extent of his wealth.  That doesn't mean he should be wasteful.  Water is cheap - but I still try and conserve.  My water bill indicates that I am below the average residential water usage, and I have kids.  If we have 100 years of oil, and we could cut our use in half without any real impact on our lifestyle, we have 200 years.  I could afford a nicer car, but the one I have is just fine.  That is my mindset.  Everyone is different.  Taxes are designed to raise revenue or promote a social or political agenda.  Think cigarrette taxes.  I believe that if the government wants to promote an environmental agenda by taxing carbon, then it needs to do so equally.  If it penalizes the rich at a rate proportionally higher than their usage, it is a social agenda, not environmental, and is unfair.  Since everyone has a carbon footprint, there is no way for anyone to NOT pay if the goal is environmental.  I'd rather have no tax than another unfair, progressive program.     

[Native_NM]

Scott I agree with your post about the Council of Rome. According to Lindsay Williams there is enough oil in Alaska to last the U.S. 200 years. In Eastern Montana, N.W. Wyoming, and Western Dakota's there is a oil formation know as the Bakaan (sp) with another 100-150 years worth.

I wish the U.S. would be more like Canada in it's natural resource use. The Canadians are not scared to go after and use their oil, gas, coal, trees, etc. Why should the U.S. let a soft socialist nation like Canada lead it in energy production ? Nothing against Canada I like visiting up there in Alberta.

What about coal gasification ?

What about nuclear? 

[dug]

What about nuclear?

Ecologically unacceptable for myself as well as millions of others. Spent fuel will remain lethally toxic for undetermined millennia and there is not even a viable short term solution for safe storage, much less a plan to cover the unfathomable chasm of several million years. Mathematics proves that accidents are unavoidable, chaos theory will have more than ample time to prevail and while certain losses may be acceptable to further a societies greater good, nuclear power's  potential to exterminate an entire city or much worse is too high of a price for my blood.

But looking at it from a more practicable, business-like point of view it makes no sense either- at least not yet.  A quote from Dr Frank Clemente -

I performed net energy analysis for MITRE for NSF and DOE back in the '70's with consultants such as Edward Teller, Marcel Barbier, and others on all known energy technologies at the time.

Our earlier work at MITRE was buried by DOE during the Reagan years. Our findings about ethanol, photovoltaics and nuclear power were not well-received. All have negative energy ROI. It takes more energy to build, operate, and retire these facilities than they produce during their lifetimes. No one has yet successfully torn down a nuclear plant and fully disposed of the carcass of the nuclear generator and its waste materials and spent fuel. No one. Not a single nation has yet to finish out its Faustian Bargain. The closest is the Germans who are tearing one down along its northern coast. It has taken 15 years so far and 5 billion euro. It's about 2/3 done. The US has a nuke disposal fund with $23 billion to close down the 104 nukes in our fleet. They average 35 years of age. Think that'll be enough?

In reality nuclear power is at this time a negative drain on the economy as is most of our other energy sources. The heavily promoted fracking for natural gas and oil is also an economic drain as well as an ecological disaster. Trading clean air and water for a short term power solution that would not even be viable if not for heavy government subsidization is nothing short of criminal in my opinion, and to knowingly support it is a selfish and reprehensible act. A sell out. Where are all of our "patriots" crying foul? They certainly are aghast about private companies getting bailed out with government funding, yet turn a blind eye to the corporate power giants who receive a myriad of perks financial and otherwise- the biggest one of all being the endless Gulf war and over a million human lives. The Energy Act of 2005 enabled Cheney and Halliburton to rake in millions (billions?) while poisoning half the groundwater in the West, all on the taxpayer's tab.

Surprisingly to me, if we really did level the playing field economically I think we would utilize the most ecologically sound power sources currently available, which I reluctantly have to admit includes coal and imported oil, as well as wind and some solar facilities. These are viable because of their high EROI's, meaning that you actually get more energy from them than the energy expended to get it. Another quote from the article I referenced above-

Most net energy analyses are quite conservative in that they do not consider the energy used by the workers who created the equipment and installed it, their families, the energy used by the workers who support the logistics of the people who are directly involved, or the entire multiplier effects of non-manufacturing jobs which stand on the shoulders of the folks doing the work. When all the beans are counted, if the EROI is less than 8:1, the economy shrinks when that technology is chosen. Examples of those choices are nuclear (5:1), fracked natural gas in the US (7:1), oil and tar sands (5:1), geothermal (5:1), photovoltaics in the sunbelt US (3:1) and elsewhere (1:1), ethanol based on non-ag sources (3:1) and ag (1:1), biodiesel (4:1), algae (4:1), and secondary oil in the US (5:1).

These are all losers. Not one nickel should be wasted on any of them.

Sadly, that's where all the money was and is being spent.

The best choices are those with an EROI significantly higher than 10:1 — offshore wind, land-based wind in class 5 areas or better, ocean thermal in the tropics, and solar thermal in high insolation areas, receive almost no help.

As for electric vehicles, they depend on a backbone of antiquated power plants and a distribution network dating back over a century. They also depend on non-existent materials and manufacturing processes for the nextgen batteries and very limited rare earth elements that do not have a large supply. Depending on these selections reflects poor judgment.

And yes, ammonia is the only answer left for transportation fuels. It can be made from air and water and ANY SOURCE of heat and electric power. If you're smart, you'll use one that has an EROI higher than 8:1. Right now that is the short list of renewables above, imported gas from cheap international sources, and coal. If you care about the environment it's a really short list.

Although coal is one of the best energy sources we currently have, the "clean coal" propaganda campaign should be terminated. I am confident future generations will view the clean coal campaign in much the same way we see cigarette ads from the 50's and 60's- "8 out of ten doctors recommend Camel cigarettes!". Funny, but sad. Tell it like it is and let the people decide.

And what of the not so distant future, say 20 years or so, when we will be requiring 50% more juice than now? Not so rosy. More people with less room digging up more fossils and excreting more poison into what we have left. The only real energy solution IMO is to find a way to reduce and then limit our world population. The white blindness takes care of the rabbits when they get too many to sustain, but what will take care of us? Of course that would be impossible under our current economic system which requires infinite expansion to survive but unless we find a way to the stars, and soon, we are lemmings heading for the cliff. We are just not sure how far away the edge is. Yet. 

[archimedes]

2) Your view on the war is a political, and independent of the intent of this thread or discusssion.  Anyone who believes the war is about oil should be marching on the Capitol and demending for higher gas taxes, which would lower demand and our dependence on foreign oil, and eliminating the need to go to war for it.

3)  Climate change is real.  The cause of it is not certain.  Hard science tells us that 10,000 years ago much of northern North America was under a sheet of ice.  New Mexico and Texas were once under water, as were large parts of Utah and Arizona.  A good 99.9% of of this change ocurred before the industrial age and burning of fossil fuels.

4) If you have to pay people at the expense of others to make it palatable, it is not equitable.  Spin it how you want, it is about income redistribution.

5) My agenda is environmental, and applies to all people regardless of socio-economic standing.  Every human has a carbon footprint.  

1)  I guess that since you didn't respond to #1 that you agree with the point.
2)  My statement is not political,  it is reality.  Our energy policy is inextricably wrapped up in our foreign policy.  The two are inseparable.  Would we have cared if Sadaam had invaded Kuwait if there were no oil there?  Of course not.  The fact that we depend on low world oil prices forces us to make bad,  and compromising,  foreign policy decisions.  At extremely high cost.
3)  I agree climate change is real.  So we,  at the very least,  should hedge ours bets to avoid the consequences from it by implementing a rational energy policy.
4)  You're very caught up in the rebate part of the Carbon Tax plan.  The rebate is NOT required whatsoever for the plan to work.  The only negative with a carbon tax is that it disproportionately hurts lower income people.  To mitigate that,  some have suggested the rebate.  The rebate is NOT essential OR necessary to achieve the goals of the plan; a) economic security  b) national security  c) create jobs  d) reduce the trade deficit  e) help the environment  d)foster innovation f) de-centralize our energy sources.


Putting a price on carbon is the best market based approach.  Many of the earlier posts are trying to figure out what would replace carbon fuels.  With a Carbon Tax you don't have to know the answer to that question or have the gov't picking winners by subsidizing specific industries (i.e. ethanol.  nuclear,  solar).  With higher carbon prices the market will find a solution.  That's the beauty of the plan.  Think of  300 million minds seeking a common goal - a cheaper replacement fuel.  Somewhere there is a Steve Jobs of energy just waiting for the opportunity that higher carbon prices present

Plus since you can schedule the increase gradually over time it's predictable and forseable,  so everyone can prepare for it without it being a shock.  Unlike what is going to be forced on us with the current oil crisis.

I have an economics background,  so I see solutions in economic terms,  not political.

[Shawn B]

What about nuclear?

The only real energy solution IMO is to find a way to reduce and then limit our world population.

So you are in favor of the gov't deciding on how many children you and your wife have? What their sexes are, which ones can live? That goes against everything this Nation was founded on. If the U.S. tried to enact a plan like this (which is what China is doing) it would result in the Second American Revolution real fast. It seems you are buying the N.W.O agenda hook, line and sinker Dug. This is the same bull shit that the Georgia Guide Stones prescribes. 

[MountainDon]

I believe it is a big leap to go from someone saying they think part of the solution to world environmental problems is to limit population, to implying that means government intervention, a la China. That's my opinion and may not reflect that of dug.  I agree there are too many people on earth. The people we already have are going to be using more and more energy. If our world population continues to increase we're just digging a bigger hole, creating a bigger problem. How to limit population growth is a sticky question. What do we do? Or is population not part of the problem?

[Squirl]

I agree with Don.  Education and access to birth control can be greatly effective without having to get to the Chinese solution.  The Chinese solution is an extreme solution for an extreme problem.  Currently our entire industrialized society has the foundation on fossil fuels, this includes food production, housing, etc... Price shocks or shortages leads to difficulties and strife.  I'm not sure if the world could sustain its population without it.  I certainly don't think it would be sustainable with the exponential population forecast when it runs out.  No one seems to debate that one day it will run out, they just debate on when.

[dug]

So you are in favor of the gov't deciding on how many children you and your wife have? What their sexes are, which ones can live?

Wow! Did I say that?

Actually I was thinking of something like financial incentives (tax breaks) for those who choose to have less children, which is the opposite situation of the system we have now. Seems to me that lowering our population to a reasonable level would be the only sensible way to avoid an eventual "New World Order".

Available resources inflict a natural carrying capacity for all species (yes, we are a species too) and when it is exceeded something has to give. Wolves have fewer or no pups when game is scarce or during a particularly hard winter, while other animals dive headlong into famine or disease when overpopulated. For all of our mastery of technical skills and mathematical genius we humans seem to be seriously challenged as far as common sense goes, though I don't think we will ever find ourselves in a short supply of arrogance.

Less people would result in a healthier quality of life, more for all, and a brighter future for our children. Un-American? I think not. Yes, there was the issue of tyranny but one of the reasons our ancestors risked their lives and crossed an unknown ocean was to escape the disease ridden and overcrowded life in Europe and start anew in a land with promise and sufficient elbow room.

You needn't worry yourself with my communist ramblings though, because I am sure that our short sightedness and dedication to a Wal-Mart economy will ensure that we continue our way blindly and blissfully along our current path. Sooner or later the Earth will take care of our population problem herself.

[Shawn B]

What this comes down to is freedom versus gov't control......I'll side with freedom every time.

The overpopulation myth was started by top Eugenicists. The information is out for those who will take the time to research. A good place to start is Margaret Sanger.

Dug...I never implied you were/are a communist. BTW, I try not to support the Wal-Mart economy.....but I have been know to buy a few things there.