Energy policy on the ObamaCare model

President Obama has decided that the Gulf oil spill means we need to change the way we power our entire country, not just the way we regualte offshore drilling. Politico reports today that the next three weeks will be crucial to that effort, with the ball in the court of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid:

The options will break down into three core elements, and the question will be how the leaders choose to combine them.

The first and easiest piece is a Gulf-spill response measure to reform offshore drilling and raise disaster liabilities on oil companies. “That one’s must-pass,” said Scott Segal, an energy lobbyist at Bracewell & Giuliani, echoing the sentiments of congressional staff members on both sides of the aisle.

The second element is a clean-energy bill that would require a boost in renewable electricity produced by sources such as wind and solar. A version of this bill, sponsored by Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), was passed by the panel last year with bipartisan support and is widely viewed as the most palatable clean-energy compromise now in the Senate.

The third, biggest and most contentious piece is a price on greenhouse gas emissions — a policy at the heart of the climate change debate. In a nod to how heavy a lift this would be, it’s likely that the carbon-cap piece will be limited to pollution from power plants and will not apply across the economy.

The article suggests that Bingaman and other Democrats believe they don’t have the votes for cap and trade, and that a package with the first two pieces is more likely. This scenario has environmentalists riled up, not just because of the dim prospects for cap and trade, but because the target for a renewable-energy mandate may end up at 15 percent of all the nation’s power — rather than the 20 percent requirement in a bill the House passed last year, or the 25 percent that Obama advocated while campaigning.

Is it just me, or is this the health debate, part deux?

Cap and trade, like the public option, is a long-held goal on the left (well, in cap and trade’s case, long is relative to the age of the global warming debate) that looks to be shot down because too many legislators know that they’d lose their jobs if they passed it.

So, we move on to the left’s next-best thing in the debate, mandating renewable energy; think mandating certain coverage aspects in health care. With the most drastic option out of the way, this is where the left and right will fight it out.

The left will push for higher percentages than are feasible, in terms of economics and probably logistics as well (the best areas for solar and wind generation are not necessarily where the demand for power is greatest). Note in the Politico article that the environmentalists object to energy efficiency being part of the renewable requirement. Nothing will ever be enough for them, because they object far more to our way of life than our means of power generation.

The right will argue that we can’t afford what Democrats are proposing, that the Western European nations that have tried such a renewables push before us have been slowly backing away from those policies, and that forcing electricity rates to jump (even if they wouldn’t quite “skyrocket” as Obama admitted would happen with cap and trade) is an especially terrible idea amid a sluggish recovery.

The left will proceed to brand Republicans and conservatives as spiteful planet haters.

The right will suggest that Congress respond to the oil spill by simply passing a bill that deals with drilling regulations, and continue to work on the broader energy question, since electricity generation itself has nothing to do with the energy needs that petroleum fills. The left will sneer at that, because it knows that the broader policy question will go nowhere on its own merits. (Come to think of it, this mirrors the immigration debate as well.)

The difference, if it comes, may be whether Obama, Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi still have the juice to make vulnerable Democrats take the poison. Or whether they can contort enough parliamentary procedures to get what they want without a proper vote.

And at the end of the day, if they can pull it through, Democrats will have enraged conservatives and peeved moderates for a legislative “achievement” that doesn’t even satisfy their most liberal supporters.

117 comments Add your comment

CJ

July 12th, 2010
11:25 am

With regard to electrical rates “skyrocketing”, MIT estimates amount to about $340 per year (not $3100 per year as Republicans have falsely claimed over and over again—such misrepresentations leading to reasonable inferences that Republicans are “spiteful planet haters”).

Note also that every time Kyle and others complain about the cost of energy, they never include the taxes that we and future generations pay to maintain bases and fight wars in the middle east (all of which are currently being put on the nation’s credit card). Nor do they include the costs associated with lost business, lost jobs, lost lives, and environmental destruction arising out oil spills, coal mine disasters, and blowing up mountains (hundreds of feet of mountain top are blasted in order to more easily reach coal, thereby dumping waste into the surrounding valleys and burying miles of streams).

In fact, the pending energy/climate proposal would overhaul a broken energy framework, reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and foreign oil, combat global warming now (yes, a fifth independent investigation concluded that the integrity of the science is sound), make America more competitive globally, cut the budget deficit by $19 billion (according to recent CBO estimates), create jobs in a burgeoning industry, and undoubtedly, save money for taxpayers in the long run.

Kyle is right about one thing, the right will suggest that Congress continue to work on the broader energy question. That’s another way of saying that the right will seek to do exactly what they did when they had control of the White House and Congress…not a damn thing.

CJ

July 12th, 2010
11:30 am

Oh, and one more thing that the pending energy/climate proposal might accomplish—requiring short-term sacrifice on the part of Americans for long-term savings, environmental preservation, and economic growth. God forbid that this generation sacrifice in any way.

Metro Coach

July 12th, 2010
11:44 am

Thanks CJ, for the daily dose of liberal-progressive-socialist point of view, people should “sacrifice for the good of the collective.” “Renewable” energy won’t put fuel in anyone’s car, nor will it bring down the cost of power. No oil drilling jobs would be lost if the Obama administration had not authorized an un-Constitutional drilling ban. Thank God there are still a few judges with some sense of the law. Any estimate the CBO gives should be multiplied by at least 10, because that is going to be closer to the true cost of any bill passed by Congress, especially when lawmakers don’t show them the entire bill, like Dems did with the healthcare bill. No one doubt’s “global warming”, what most people deny is the fact that humans have that much impact on the entire climate. The globe warms and cools all on its own, humans, their SUV’s, and cow flatulence have nothing to do with it.

Grand Forks

July 12th, 2010
11:49 am

“President Obama has decided that the Gulf oil spill means we need to change the way we power our entire country, not just the way we regualte offshore drilling.”

So when’s he gonna cap the oil leak? It’s been what, 100 days?

“Note also that every time Kyle and others complain about the cost of energy, they never include the taxes that we and future generations pay to maintain bases and fight wars in the middle east”

If you’re so concerned about the future, why did you vote for Obama?

“Republicans are “spiteful planet haters”

Then why hasn’t the mighty and all powerful Obama capped the oil leak?

Grand Forks

July 12th, 2010
11:50 am

“requiring short-term sacrifice”

Social Security was supposed to be short-term…… CJ, please, continue to post democrat talking points about how evil the GOP is blah blah blah.

Grand Forks

July 12th, 2010
11:51 am

The SS Obama continues to tank.

Governors Voice Grave Concerns on Immigration

BOSTON — In a private meeting with White House officials this weekend, Democratic governors voiced deep anxiety about the Obama administration’s suit against Arizona’s new immigration law, worrying that it could cost a vulnerable Democratic Party in the fall elections.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/12/us/politics/12governors.html

Grand Forks

July 12th, 2010
11:52 am

CJ

Can you please post a link to those MIT numbers. Thanks

Grand Forks

July 12th, 2010
11:56 am

“The left will proceed to brand Republicans and conservatives as spiteful planet haters.”

Yeah, but with unemployment at 10%, the general public could care less about global scamming. Al Gore is in a bitter divorce and is on the verge of being on trial for rape. The left has lost it’s confidence in Obama and blaming Bush is getting them nowhere.

Cap and Trade won’t pass simply because the democrats are all fighting for their seats. Obama has now divided the country far more than Bush ever did and is wasting even more taxpayer dollars suing AZ.

But hey, at least we got “the first black president” out of the way. Next up, Palin.

joan1

July 12th, 2010
12:00 pm

I figure Obama didn’t react to the oil spill for over a month, and has refused help from other nations because he wanted the spill to reach the “crisis” point that Emanual said is the “right time’ to enact some idiot piece of legislation. This golden goose of a country is rapidly running out of eggs. What I don’t understand is why people don’t seem to get it. Do people think you can tax people greater and greater amounts and that they won’t become disheartened, leave the country, hide their assets or do whatever it takes to survive? Then where will all the welfare people go?? Rioting in the streets I guess, like the Greeks.

Grand Forks

July 12th, 2010
12:07 pm

Can’t wait to see how the left wingers explain this one. 700.000 census workers about to be out of a job.

End of Census, and for Many, End of Job

PROVIDENCE, R.I. — It was a finely honed machine, this United States Census team, and it had a good run. But in the coming days and weeks, many of its members will experience the pain of unemployment — once again.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/12/business/12census.html

CJ

July 12th, 2010
12:08 pm

You got me Metro Coach. Sacrificing for the good of others. How evil!

Undoubtedly, Jesus (died on the cross), Adam Smith (advocated for progressive taxation decades before Marx was born), Eisenhower (led the Greatest Generation in war and financed interstate highways at taxpayer expense for the benefit of future generations) and Reagan (raised taxes several times, including Social Security taxes) were evil socialists too. But rather than following their lead, you’d have us honoring the memory of a Russian socialite who penned “The Virtue of Selfishness.”

Actually, despite your angry, fact-challenged rant, I’m not persuaded. Surprised?

Balderdash

July 12th, 2010
12:10 pm

“liberal-progressive-socialist point of view, people should ’sacrifice for the good of the collective.’”

I think conservatives held this view during the Great Depression and World War II. It was considered patriotic.

“The globe warms and cools all on its own, humans, their SUV’s, and cow flatulence have nothing to do with it.”

The first part of this statement is true. The second is not. Ancient ice tells us exactly the content of the atmosphere in previous periods of global warming. They all have elevated CO2, with the difference being now it is elevated to previously unseen levels. What’s the difference? An industrialized planet.

CJ

July 12th, 2010
12:15 pm

Here you go, Grand Forks–

It’s a letter from one of the authors of the M.I.T. study that the GOP was misrepresenting:

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/republican.pdf

StJ

July 12th, 2010
12:19 pm

“Nothing will ever be enough for them, because they object far more to our way of life than our means of power generation.”

Therein is the root cause of the energy debate, and most other policy debates…a group of pompous, self-righteous people who think they know what’s better for us than we do, and are pushing to write that into law.

Grand Forks

July 12th, 2010
12:40 pm

“It’s a letter from one of the authors of the M.I.T. study that the GOP was misrepresenting:’

No, I want the actual MIT numbers from MIT. Not some left wing rag.

Grand Forks

July 12th, 2010
12:42 pm

“Actually, despite your angry, fact-challenged rant, I’m not persuaded. Surprised?”

Interesting, CJ rants about “fact-challenged rants” and posts garbage from think progress.

Grand Forks

July 12th, 2010
12:43 pm

Balderdash

Where’s Al Gore these days?

Ragnar Danneskjöld

July 12th, 2010
12:44 pm

Good afternoon all. I would urge all rational politicians – oxymoron acknowledged – to oppose all three proposals.
(1) Off-shore drilling does not need “reform” – a single accident in 40 years does not require “reform.” Typical activist thinking, lock the barn door after the horses escape, and lock only the doors at well-run stables. While I agree that liability amount “caps” make no sense, surely frivolous causes of action, or remote causes ought not carry liability, and indeed plaintiffs ought to be punished for such fraudulent claims. Example, President Obama ordered cessation of all drilling due to the oil accident. That massive loss of wages has nothing to do with BP, but is entirely attributable to leftist cognitive incapacity – BP ought to be exempt from such claims.

(2) “Clean energy” is code for “economically-inefficient energy proffered by leftist friends of the President, who therefore ought to be sucking at the taxpayer teat to be able to sustain the normal lifestyle of an overlord.” In a rational world the market makes such decisions, rather than overlords picking winners and losers.

(3) Cap and tax has nothing to do with the global warming fraud, and everything to do with controlling the rabble. Only national socialists support such constraints on economic growth.

Grand Forks

July 12th, 2010
12:45 pm

Ragnar Danneskjöld

Great points. Say hi to Bookman for me!

Grand Forks

July 12th, 2010
12:50 pm

I saw Predators over the weekend. Nothing great but not bad either.

Nothing beats this scene: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6jlEzKL748

David S

July 12th, 2010
12:52 pm

There should never be a “national energy policy.” Having one smacks of the Soviet style 10-year plan. Central planning doesn’t work. But worse than that, it causes plenty of other unintended consequences.

Our government is plagued by rampant crony-capitalism. From the day the Senate passed the treaty with Saudi Arabia pledging to defend the House of Saud against all threats, this country has been tied to the rotting corpse of middle east oil and violence.

Today we have energy subsidies that are turning our food (corn) into wasteful and inefficient fuel. Free security (courtesy of our bloated military) for the middle east oil companies, other tarriffs and subsidies that help out every range of fossil and other fuels, and now blatant giveaways to “alternative” energy companies that have successfully lobbied/bribed/slept they way to big payoffs.

Every dollar that is taken by force from the american consumer and given to a friend in big business is another dollar that cannot be freely spent in support of the best energy source the consumer can purchase. Our dependence on foreign oil did not happen because of free market forces, but rather because national energy policy made oil SEEM cheap (tell that to all of our dead soldiers in the middle east – because that is all they are fighting for) and thus gave oil and petroleum products an artifical competitive edge. Add to that laws destroying property rights (allowing air pollution, etc.) and you have a situation in which a market of mixed, likely more efficient energy sources was never allowed to happen all so that the friends of government could line their pockets and be free from competitive pressure. And yes, this goes all the way back to Wilson and before. Bush and Cheney were just the two worst examples of crony capitalism, but the rest are cetainly not exempt.

Here’s a policy we might try – FREEDOM. Oh right, neither party wants to try that one. No wonder we have a ballot access policy written by the two major parties to keep themselves from any serious competition.

No More Progressives!

July 12th, 2010
12:52 pm

“Actually, despite your angry, fact-challenged rant, I’m not persuaded. Surprised?”

After reading your Howard Dean-styled daily diatribes for months, nothing you say surprises me. So no, I’m not surprised.

No More Progressives!

July 12th, 2010
12:58 pm

“Clean energy” is code for “economically-inefficient energy proffered by leftist friends of the President, who therefore ought to be sucking at the taxpayer teat to be able to sustain the normal lifestyle of an overlord.” In a rational world the market makes such decisions, rather than overlords picking winners and losers.

This is an excellent point. Watch Wall Street and the venture capital crowd; when they start pouring money into wind farms (just an example) then it’s time to stand up and take notice of what has changed in the market. The reason it takes Govt. grants to get these worthless (wind farms)investments up & running is because the private side has done their homework and, frankly, wind is “neato” for the greenies but worthless to a nation with the power demands that we have.

Nuclear, anyone?

Grand Forks

July 12th, 2010
1:00 pm

“Nuclear, anyone?”

One day we’ll have to nuke the oil leak.

CJ

July 12th, 2010
1:21 pm

Grand Forks,

Why do you insists on wallowing in your ignorance?

The letter I linked to was written by one of the MIT scientists that penned the study that the GOP claims to be their source of the $3100 figure. The link I provided is a direct link to the letter itself. I Googled, and that’s the first link that came up. Who posted the letter is irrelevant to it’s contents. If you’d prefer to find it by way of somebody else’s web server, have at it. But your lame excuse for not accepting a correction from the scientists who the Republicans misrepresent is exactly that.

Grand Forks

July 12th, 2010
1:31 pm

“Why do you insists on wallowing in your ignorance?”

Oh goody, another left winger throws out the “ignorance” card yet can’t accomplish a simple task. Since when was asking a simple question about facts considered being ignorant?

“The letter I linked to was written by one of the MIT scientists”

No, you posted a link to Think Progress, a left wing rag of lies.

“Who posted the letter is irrelevant to it’s contents.”

Interesting that Think Progress is the ONLY website to have posted a letter from MIT.

“But your lame excuse”

You mean like when you rant on Fox News?

“correction from the scientists who the Republicans misrepresent is exactly that.”

LOL!!! Whatever you say cj.

Grand Forks

July 12th, 2010
1:32 pm

CJ

That letter is garbage.

Grand Forks

July 12th, 2010
1:32 pm

More proof that Obama is a one term president.

Dems propose delaying primary season

With memories of a 2008 primary season that almost began before Christmas and lasted into the summer, Democratic party officials are proposing delaying the start of the 2012 presidential nominating primaries.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/10/dems-propose-delaying-primary-season/?fbid=Mu1a4ekBxm4&hpt=Sbin

CJ

July 12th, 2010
1:35 pm

Off-shore drilling does not need “reform” – a single accident in 40 years does not require “reform.”

A single accident in 40 years? You might want to revisit this assertion–

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_spills

JDW

July 12th, 2010
1:50 pm

Jay, enraged conservatives, peeved moderates and unsatisfied liberal supporters seems the perfect balance to me. That means legislation that is squarely in the middle with along with most of America.

JDW

July 12th, 2010
2:00 pm

Grand Forks if you would stop your pontificating and posturing and read the letter CJ posted you will find the following:

http://globalchange.mit.edu/pubs/reports.php

Please note that the address is at MIT.EDU and not some “left wing rag of lies” as you purport. Kudos to you though, you have the Party of No strategy down cold.

Deny, lie, mislead but never learn.

Grand Forks

July 12th, 2010
2:01 pm

“You might want to revisit this assertion– ”

Pot meet kettle.

Grand Forks

July 12th, 2010
2:06 pm

“Grand Forks if you would stop your pontificating and posturing and read the letter CJ posted you will find the following:”

I did. It’s nothing but garbage.

“Please note that the address is at MIT.EDU and not some “left wing rag of lies” as you purport. ”

Oh my bad, Think Progress threw me there.

“Kudos to you though, you have the Party of No strategy down cold. ”

Better than being on the sinking SS Obama.

“Deny, lie, mislead but never learn.”

That sums up Obama.

Grand Forks

July 12th, 2010
2:07 pm

“Deny, lie, mislead but never learn.’

What did I lie about and mislead on?

mark

July 12th, 2010
2:10 pm

Only a great President serves two terms!

Grand Forks

July 12th, 2010
2:23 pm

Democrat party is the party of high school drop outs, illegal aliens and…….convicted felons.

Felons Voting Illegally May Have Put Franken Over the Top in Minnesota, Study Finds

The six-month election recount that turned former “Saturday Night Live” comedian Al Franken into a U.S. senator may have been decided by convicted felons who voted illegally in Minnesota’s Twin Cities.

That’s the finding of an 18-month study conducted by Minnesota Majority, a conservative watchdog group, which found that at least 341 convicted felons in largely Democratic Minneapolis-St. Paul voted illegally in the 2008 Senate race between Franken, a Democrat, and his Republican opponent, then-incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/12/felons-voting-illegally-franken-minnesota-study-finds/

JDW

July 12th, 2010
3:16 pm

Grand Forks asked “What did I lie about and mislead on?

In response to the assertion “the letter was written by an MIT scientist. Grand Forks wrote “no, you posted a link to Think Progress, a left wing rag of lies.”

Grand Forks has lied the letter in question is clearly on MIT letterhead and was signed by Dr. John M. Reilly, Co-Director, Joint Program and Senior Lecturer, Sloan School of Management at MIT.

Grand Forks also wrote “

Interesting that Think Progress is the ONLY website to have posted a letter from MIT”

Another lie by Grand Forks

The letter is also posted at:

http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/Reilly_Response_Letter_1.pdf
http://wilderness.org/files/MIT-Letter-Science-Policy-Global-Change.pdf
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2009/04/mit-scientist-republicans-confused-about-my-climate-change-study.php?page=3
Links are posted at
http://www.forestcouncil.org/tims_picks/view.php?id=1788
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/08/16-2
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/04/02/mit-to-republicans-lay-off-the-scaremongering-on-climate-costs/

That are many more but you get the idea.

Horrible Horrace

July 12th, 2010
3:25 pm

Franken is a crude butthole.

Grand Forks

July 12th, 2010
3:56 pm

“Grand Forks has lied the letter in question is clearly on MIT letterhead and was signed by Dr. John M. Reilly, Co-Director, Joint Program and Senior Lecturer, Sloan School of Management at MIT.’

Are you blind? The pdf link has Think Progress on it.

Again, what did I lie about?

“The letter is also posted at:”

All left wing outlets except for the the WSJ. Interesting that you, not CJ, are defending the MIT letter.

“That are many more but you get the idea.”

Grammar fail.

Grand Forks

July 12th, 2010
3:58 pm

“Grand Forks has lied the letter in question is clearly on MIT letterhead and was signed by Dr. John M. Reilly, Co-Director, Joint Program and Senior Lecturer, Sloan School of Management at MIT.”

I never lied about anything, ma’am. I never said the letter was NOT from MIT. Your words not mine.

TJ

July 12th, 2010
3:59 pm

Grand Forks,
Thanks for the link to the article about felons voting in MN. But we all know there is no such thing as voter fraud (when it is perpetrated in favor of Democrats), ha ha. President Bush “stole” the election in 2000 and the Ohio Attorney General stole it for President Bush in 2004, according to Democrats. But you want to vote for a Democrat, then checking prison records, maybe making someone show a picture ID at the poll, maybe prove they are citizens, well, that’s just “disenfranchisement”, we all know that.

2000 was an attempted coup d’etat by the Gore camp (try to change the rules of the game after it was played), etc. and they came pretty close, but luckily the Republic withstood the attempt (not the first, not the last). Sore losers, just took Tipper a while to find that out, I guess.

Grand Forks

July 12th, 2010
4:07 pm

TJ
You’re welcome. Kyle is outnumbered by two left wing columnists and neither Jay nor Cynthia want to talk about important things such as high unemployment, voter fraud etc…..

And yes, left wingers still continue to say that Bush somehow stole the election in 2000. Just sit back and laugh at them.

Bob Barr and Jim Wooten

July 12th, 2010
4:14 pm

Kyle is outnumbered by two left wing columnists…

What are we…chopped liver?

Fix-It

July 12th, 2010
4:16 pm

CJ,
I can understand your train of thought, the problem is you don’t understand anybody else’s, or even listen to facts. (Is that a liberal thing?) I think it is wonderful that you want to save the world, feel free to any time but do force me or other people to pay for your wants and desires.(is that also a liberal thing) If all you wonderful liberals want to help out you can always pay more taxes, volunteer YOUR money not mine.

Grand Forks

July 12th, 2010
4:19 pm

“What are we…chopped liver?”

JIm Wooten is retired. Bob Barr is a libertarian who posts topics maybe once a week.

You were saying?

ButtHead

July 12th, 2010
4:24 pm

JDW,
Are you trying to tell me that MIT is a conservative right-wing collage? Is it you who is misleading people? Last time I looked there were no such thing as a right-wing collage; they have been taken over by liberal terrorist, and actually some real terrorist. Here is a liberal quiz; can you spot the facts in the previous two sentences? hint hint, 2 facts 1 opinion, see if you can figure it out..

Brad

July 12th, 2010
4:26 pm

@Grand Forks, et.al.

In your view, is there ever an appropriate time to delay gratification?

HDB

July 12th, 2010
4:27 pm

What people aren’t looking at when it comes to energy policy is how the nation has been corrupted by those who create energy (oil and utilities)….and how we have been prevented from going to alternatives (auto companies and politicians).

The US could’ve been energy independent since 1972…but…

1) The oil companies destroyed the plans that both GM and Chrysler had for vehicles that ran on gas-turbine engines and alcohol based fuels

2) The auto companies stymied gas turbine technology by limiting Andy Granetelli’s STP Turbine cars in the Indianapolis 500

3) The auto companies in the FIRST oil crisis, continued to make bigger cars, allowing the Japanese to formulate more fuel efficient cars

4) Governmental interference in the Reagan Years eliminated the TAX INCENTIVES for solar and wind technology for the masses. Siemens is now the leader in wind turbine technology whereas GE was the innovator!!

5) No common design of a nuclear reactor prevents rapid construction of nuclear power plants for electric generation; Freance gets almost 70% of its electricity from nuclear sources

6) NIMBY!! Yucca Flats in Nevada…and Hanford is almost full!! What are we to do with spent nuclear material…and the half life is almost 10,000 years??

I would have loved to have seen home production of ethanol for personal use, the uncapping of oil wills in Texas and Oklahoma (that have been capped since 1969 — all because the oil companies said it was CHEAPER to import oil from the Middle East), a standardization of oil drilling – particularly in DEEP water (the moratorium would’ve only affected 36 wells….not the entire industry!), gas turbine and electric technology for automobiles, wind and solar technology for home domestic usage….and energy policy that TARGETS the nation to be energy independent in 10 years! Germany is half way there; Brazil IS there…….

Dave

July 12th, 2010
4:30 pm

This is how they’ll get everything (like cap and trade passed):

The Obama-Pelosi Lame Duck Strategy
Union ‘card-check,’ cap and trade, and so much more

“The rush to recess gives Democrats little time to pass any major laws. That’s why there have been signs in recent weeks that party leaders are planning an ambitious, lame-duck session to muscle through bills in December they don’t want to defend before November. Retiring or defeated members of Congress would then be able to vote for sweeping legislation without any fear of voter retaliation.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704293604575343262629361470.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

RK

July 12th, 2010
4:31 pm

The article and comments all address the supply side of energy use. On the demand side, there should be unanimous agreement on the expectation that our built environment be as efficient as possible. Energy bills drop when usage drops. This concept works both in residential and commercial properties. Architects and building designers know how to create “tight” enclosures that properly shade window in a healthful manner. This simple goal would go a long way to lower energy demands to those of 1990 by 2030.

For those who are concerned with the “greenhouse gases,” let there be a policy debate to close all coal fired energy plants and replace them with natural gas (made in the USA) or nuclear power (as safe as the power plants in our largest warships).