Cleaner air and water.

REPLY: The air and water has never been cleaner. It's no longer 1949! Reply: Both can always be even cleaner.

--Reduced dependence on foreign energy.

REPLY: By Drilling for our own OIL, and developing alternative energy over the long haul.

--Solid Job creation at home in developing the new technology.

REPLY: By cutting taxes, NOT by capping and trading carbon, which is what these two losers running for president want to to do.

--lower costs down the road to the consumer (initial costs may be high).

REPLY: We need proof of this. And the New Scientist with their usual agenda is not the one to provide it.

and as a side note, you want to solve the world financial crisis? Cut taxes, and stop loaning money to people who can't afford to pay a mortgage. And stop voting for these morons that allow it! In BOTH parties!!!! And forget about GLO-BULL WARMING!!!!!!!

1. I do not see enough evidence to prove in a court of law of Global warming caused by mankind. I see the sun being the factor in the earths heating up and cooling down and I do not see anything man can do to change that!
2. I am for clean air and clean water just as I am for clean living such as spelled out in the 10 commandments. How you get the whole world to abide and follow.....well good luck!

Apparently Iceland is energy independent, they no longer use fossil fuels for energy and they don't have nuclear plants nor do they use coal. They use geothermal, and hydropower.

"Iceland the First Country to Try Abandoning Gasoline"
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1518556

Unfortunately, recently Iceland apparently has gone bankrupt.

"Iceland Goes Bankrupt"
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2008/10/iceland_goes_ba.html

The first step in a clean energy economy has to start with oil. The Americas are generally self-sufficient in the other existing and likely energy sources.

Oil is a primary driver in the trade imbalance, empowerment of countries that do not wish us well, and competition with China and India (who are not natural enemies of the US).

Simply putting a tax surcharge on all imported oil from outside the Americas (with appropriate audit trails to ensure Venezuala doesn't import oil from abroad and then resell it) would increase the price of oil within the Americas and would spur conservation and alternative fuel development. It would incidentally improve air quality and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Simultaneously, the US should team up with Europe, India and China to jointly develop and market clean energy alternatives to oil in particular and coal secondarily.

A successful program to reduce worldwide dependence on oil would be the biggest driver for world peace that the world has ever seen. The Middle East would be reduced to just being a crossroads for transportation again and Russia would need to develop a diversified economy.

Hmmmmm....
Cathy Zoi, CEO of The Alliance for Climate Protection, chaired by Mr. Al Gore himself. I'm sure there is no bias in Ms. Zoi's article.

Benefits.....
--Cleaner air and water
--Reduced dependence on foreign energy
--Solid Job creation at home in developing the new technology
--lower costs down the road to the consumer (initial costs may be high)
What do you think?

If we're talking about focusing on nuclear power (no CO2, no pollution, nuc waste can be handled), I'm all for it.

If we're talking about throwing a huge amount of tax $ and mindless mandates into expensive and unreliable renewable technologies, here's my view:

- It will not result in cleaner air and water. The EPA already presides over very strict air and water pollution standards (CO2 is not a pollutant)
- we can reduce our dependence on foreign energy by focusing on clean coal and nuclear, using our own fossil sources in the near term (offshore drilling, natural gas, oil shale), and transitioning to electric powered transportation over the longer term
- the job creation argument is pure fantasy - the jobs in new energy tech would simply be shifted from other industries put out of business by higher energy costs - it would ultimately cause a net loss of jobs in the U.S. Reply: I disagree.
- lower costs to consumers down the road - you're kidding, right? There are no credible studies indicating lower energy costs "down the road" if we implement cap and trade and mandate the use of renewables.

When the majority of americans realize what cap and trade and renewable mandates will do to their utility bills, taxes, and the economy, this nonsense will come to a screeching halt.

One of the closing remarks to the article: I don't know if this shift to a clean energy economy will solve the world's financial hole, but ........ says it all .....it even contradicts the title!!!!

Reply: Paul, those closing remarks are mine. Not from the article.

With comments like this, it's clear that this "report/project" is void of any integrity, responsibility or accountability!

Sounds more like a speech that we would hear at beauty pageants when contestants offer their "profound" thoughts on global poverty, starvation and war .......all in 60 seconds!

Dear readers

I understand the concept of 'less emissions' and the use of more efficient, cleaner fuels in order to contribute to the reduction of global warming.

However, it makes me wonder if all the economic, sociological and political efforts are fruitless, particularly when there are so many conflicts wars)going on throughout the world.

Wars are so financially demanding, producing what must also terrific levels of pollution that it is in turn more than likely that it be the most serious contributor towards Global warming and economic recession.

Surely, the most important thing that the worlds more technically advanced nations (East and West)should be tackling is the 'War v Peace' issue.

Technically advanced countries will inevitably suffer as a consequence of so much global conflict and severely damaged economies! as well as lesser developed countries, terrorist organizations and the like.

Eventually, because of financial limitations Global conflicts will become localized. All the good intentions and efforts of those who advocate on behalf of minority groups, subjugated populations and suppressed peoples will have been in vain.

It is time we, as presumably! the most intelligent and productive species on earth, took steps to reduce our contribution to the destruction of this beautiful planet.

If governments can utilize billions of pounds of Tax payers, money to effect global financial recovery, then perhaps the same can be done to eradicate global conflict.

This note could go on and on, considering a multitude of variables, but perhaps it has at least given some food for thought. Particularly, by those who have a genuine respect for life and the health of our planet.

John Roberts

Cleaner sources of energy are indeed noble goals. The problem is that the current costs of cleaner energy would place an even higher burden on industry and consumers alike which would only serve to inflate the cost of everything. That would be bad for all economies of the world, especially the poorer ones. Adopting a national policy like this would be suicidal.

What is "climate-warming carbon"? Is this a new element on the periodic table? When did carbon take on this magical property, "climate-warming?" Going after carbon is simply wrong-headed since it is emitted in the form of CO2 which is harmless (actually beneficial) to the environmnet. Devoting scarce national resources to slay the imaginary demon, carbon, reminds me of Don Quixote attacking windmills he mistook as monsters. The same thing will happen to us as happened to Don Quixote - we will fall on our arse.

I think that the sentiment is well placed and the idea is honorable.

Problem is that it is not feasible to replace all of our energy and the simple fact is that all four of the benefits noted are already in place.

Besides that, the important question is how a clean energy economy will save the planet from the threat of global cooling.

So,
Enviormentalists are now energy experts? If anything, our reliance on foreign oil will increase over time as more land is made off limits to drilling and coal mines are closed. The energy has to come from somewhere, and today niether solar, wind, or ethanol comes even close to meeting our daily requirements. As we speak there are a dozen lawsuits filed in federal court prohibiting the running of new transmission line pylons to solar cell farms in the Southwest. Most areas along our coasts are tourist sites, and the state goverments have mainly prohibited the construction of wind-mills. In the Plains, thousands of acres would have to be taken out of farmers hands in order to construct large wind farms, and again new transmission towers would have to be constructed. And don't even talk about nuclear power. But more importantly, none of these private energy concerns can even make a profit without a huge injection of public cash. Even ethanol has to still be heavily subsidized after 30 years in the running.

As far as "cleaner air' (I'm assuming they meant less CO2 in the air), I''m not so sure this will happen. Cap and Trade and Carbon Credits haven't prevented the rich from traveling in private Citations, or building 25,000sq foot mansions. Industry will just pay the fines and chalk them up as another expense, or pass them off to consumers. MLB has salary caps, but that doesn't prevent the Yankees from spending $250 million on thier payroll.

what financial crisis?

Its just a natural cycle, probably linked with the solar activity!

http://www.crikey.com.au/Business/20081001-Keane-There-is-no-evidence-for-a-human-induced-credit-crisis.html

Many think we can beat the climate change issue without reducing our consumption in the developed world. (ie material living standard). But NO we cant!

This recession come depression is a necessary path to addressing the issue and as climate advocates we should embrace it.

DCAN!

I love the generalization "alternate energy". It's a pipe dream that doesn't exist. As far as the benefits listed, if they were real, companies would be investing already, right? But they aren't, because investing in "alternative energy" loses money. Even T. Boon needs government subsidies. Create jobs? If it costs more to produce energy from "alternate energy" than from coal or gas, then is will lose jobs. Just ask from what project are you stealing the money to give it to alternative energy. Those projects will lose jobs.

The only energy source we could shift to is nuclear energy. We would need about 50 more plants. I think there are 5 on the books with the first one ten years away (if it survives the law suits). We are stuck with coal and gas, so let's get realistic about it. Regards.

I wonder how many of these people have ever held a real job.

Brett, following is a quote from an article in today's NYT:
"Even so, wind power is not yet a panacea for the country�s manufacturing sector. Job gains from wind power are modest compared with the huge losses from traditional industries."

The full article can be found here:
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/a-gust-of-green-jobs/?hp

Cap and trade and renewable mandates will, for certain, increase energy prices and taxes. The mess that is our current economy cannot take on the additional burdens of yet higher energy cost on top of the recent increases and higher taxes. I remain convinced that the AGW energy agenda will ultimatley cost the U.S. jobs.

John Roberts,

"If governments can utilize billions of pounds of Tax payers, money to effect global financial recovery, then perhaps the same can be done to eradicate global conflict."

Well John, although, sad as it may seem, the world's economies are built on and propped up by military contracts and conflicts.

With a world, who's thousands of years of history and ideololgies, having been constructed on several wars always going on at any given moment, it would be near impossible to think of global peace happening anytime soon.

When the rich, famous and powerful are the one's who control the world's purse strings and are heavily invested, directly or indirectly, in the perpetual war machine, it's not something they will let go of easily, if at all.

No one, ever, in our history has been able to advance global peace. If you can't stop your local neighbors from shooting each other over a fence encroachment or a trespassing, how do you plan on stopping countries from doing the same?

Here is a small list of military contractors that serve the NATO communities. This list does not include the tens of thousands of support companies that feed these contracting technologies, or the government bureaucracies and investments built up around them, worldwide.

http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/indexAtoZ.html

Anyone looking for insight on the flaws and the solution (major overhaul) to the fix the system can find them on http://coinage.me

It goes into detail how the summary information needed to actually manage a fiat currency system is not available and therefore cannot be properly managed.

Furthermore our information system systems are not designed correctly to support such a system the data is all disparate.

The is referenced by one of Obama�s advisors and can be read at the Obama link below.

http://tinyurl.com/52bczy

I agree. It's truly amazing to me how little our right-wing friends know about economics. Their entire view of the economy is old, outdated and one-dimensional -- cut taxes for the wealthiest, and have the crumbs trickle down to the rest of us plebians and we'll all live happily ever after. Apparently they still think it's 1980 and that Airplane is still in theaters. Someone forgot to tell them that median wages have decreased since 2000. I guess we'll have to wait a long time for those crumbs to trickle down.

Most economic booms begin -- and are driven -- by brand new industries and new technologies. The next boom will be driven by biotechnology, alternative energy and the concept of sustainable business. That's where the ideas are. That's where the intellectual "energy" is, no pun intended. It's not in oil. The only new ideas coming out of the oil industry are fancier ways to poke holes in the ground.

Governments can help emerging industries by helping them build economies of scale. Here again, the right-wing has a different viewpoint: they believe that the government should provides subsidies to mature industries which already have economies of scale, namely the oil industry. For those who criticize "subsidies" for alternative energy, get a clue -- the oil industry gets ten times more subsidies from the government than alternative energy does. That's a travesty.

There will be another economic boom in, say, five to ten years from now and it will be driven by the factors I just discussed. It's going to take a couple years to completely recover from this recession. The Reaganite institutions are crumbling and do not apply to the globalized world we live in now. A new economic paradigm will take effect.

By the way, there was a time when the world preserved their food with salt. In fact, we preserved our food for 6,000 years this way. Then this little thing called refrigeration came into existence. It took nearly 100 years of research before we had a product called the refrigerator being sold in stores. And guess what? When it first came out, a refrigerator cost twice as much as a car. Can you imagine what the Denier populace would have said back then? I can:

"MINE HERE, MINE NOW, MINE OFTEN!!!"

"SALT IS KING!!!"

"Refrigeration is never going to be anything but a bit player. We need more salt."

"Why...they want to take us back to the stone age and starve us. MINE, BABY, MINE!"

There are lots of salt mines in Europe that are tourist sites now. By 2050, many oil fields will follow suit.

One of the most overlooked changes we could initiate, the paperless office, could also be the most beneficial economically. Eliminating paper would save energy by:
1.eliminating enormous energy and water use in its' manufacture.
2.eliminating fuel consumption in its' transport.
Paper is very heavy.
3.eliminating energy used in to process it, everything from printing to filing.
4.eliminating the energy consumption for equipment to process paper,i.e. copiers, toners, printers, filing equipment,& office space requirements
5.eliminating energy for secondary transport,i.e. postage energy consumption.

At the same time eliminating paper would increase business productivity and control. After an intial investment, businesses would save substantially and become more efficient. Besides the energy savings, paper and paper related expenses consume as much as 70% of office product and equipment expenses. Office space can be reduced as desks can be smaller and filing equipment eliminated. If the U.S. became the leader in offering new technologies for this change, we could improve our balance of payments by selling it overseas.

Can anyone suggest how we could speed up this shift which is occuring, albeit very slowly? I would love to get involved in such an effort.

-Steve G.

Hydrocarbons extracted from the earth are, and always have been, a finite resource. They have provided us with a bridge of cheap energy to develop the technological sophistication to create a more sustainable energy base for civilization. The problem is that we've already harvested nearly all of the low-hanging fruit. Beyond this point, we will be incurring an ever-increasing "calorie deficit". Our civilization will be required to devote an ever-increasing percentage of its collective resources and effort for a diminishing return on investment.

The time is now for us, collectively through our governments, to vigorously push for the transition to a sustainable energy base before the effort required to continue extracting hydrocarbons has so consumed and weakened our economies that we'll be unable to make that transition at all.

ROFLMAO........need I say more?

All are admirable goals.

One has to be careful on the last goal - lower costs down the road to the consumer (initial costs may be high) -. Initial costs are high for a nuclear plant, as well as off shore drilling, yet these are proven technologies for energy development.

Initial costs are higher for wind or solar, but these have only been marginal producers of energy to date. Others have not even been marginal as of yet. What if we pour billions into these and other purported clean projects, and we still have to purchase oil overseas, and we have not met our needs for electrical generation? It will be both an energy plan and financial disaster.

The answer is to not develop a one dimensional solution to our energy needs, and do not abandon our proven technologies, including coal power plants.

The air and water has never been cleaner. It's no longer 1949!

Reply: Both can always be even cleaner.

Not at the expense of an already sagging economy or jeopardizing the Republic, Brett. In case you haven't figured out by now, there is no convincing me otherwise that that is what these people want to acheive with their agenda. It has nothing to do with clean air and water.

Hmmm...
--Cleaner air and water?
There is no need for forced replacement of energy sources to improve air and water cleanliness. There are far less expensive means to address this issue.

--Reduced dependence on foreign energy?
Changing the electricity grid energy generation to wind, solar, geothermal and tidal will not impact oil imports. It may dramatically increase NG imports if wind is a big player in the energy mix, unless energy storage is added to the bill.

There is no need for forced replacement of energy sources to reduce foreign energy dependence. It is already cheaper to run a $40K EV from your wall outlet than to run an ICE on $4/gallon gas, although the main reason is the better efficiency of the expensive EV c/w with a standard ICE. It is almost cost-effective (compared with a gasoline Honda Civic, for example) to run a $20K EV from your home-installed solar PV system if you live in a sunny climate. Market forces will make cost-effective EV's with good range available, although we are not there just yet. And what exactly do people have against Canadians, our largest foreign supplier of energy (oil, NG, electricity)?

--Solid Job creation at home in developing the new technology
The incentives to develop alternative sources of energy are driven by economics of existing energy sources. This will create new jobs. No gov't mandates are needed.

--lower costs down the road to the consumer (initial costs may be high)
Initial costs ARE very high. Solar PV costs have not dropped since 2003, even as gov't subsidies/mandates have created artificial demand. Denmark, the poster-country for wind, generated 20% of its electricity load from wind in 2007, with 26% capacity wrt to nameplate rating, resulting in consumer base prices of 37 cents per kWhr, and higher prices during peak hours. That's not going down in price anytime soon, and Denmark has the benefit of large neighboring electricity grids that can buffer the wide swings in wind generation output.

They have been at it for ten years.

For the last 150 years, technology has been rapidly, even exponentially increasing, in comparison to the rest of recorded history.

I have no reason to believe that it won't continue to do so and that energy companies won't move to cleaner energy as the technologies improve. I know some people will jump all over me for this statement, but big oil companies are not so stupid as to believe that oil will never run out and therefore they only focus on oil as energy. Companies that don't progress eventually die.

Now, that's not to say that there aren't lobbyists for more focused companies who are only involved in finding oil--they have a large stake in making sure we continue to do that.

The best way to advance is for Gov't not to restrict finding and advancing new technology, but at the same time not restrict the current technology before we have replacements for it.

In my opinion, there are many reasons to advance toward cleaner energy, but a hypothesis that the earth will be destroyed by global warming is not high on my list. From anecdotal evidence I've seen on other blogs from people who actually work in alternative energy fields, we don't have the technology right now to completely replace fossil fuels without nuclear power simply because of the United States huge demand for energy. Government cannot mandate that something like this be done no matter how much money is thrown at it--it will take time and research and smart minds to do it. Back to my original statement at top--technology has rapidly advanced for 150 years and there's no reason to think it'll stop now, these changes just aren't going to happen overnight though.

Mark: Have you been hitting the switchgrass again?
'Cause your salt-oil analogy makes absolutely no sense.

Economics is also not your strong suit, Mark. I guess the only good thing about your candidate winning is we will get to experience a real depression and start seeing what socialism is like (hey, maybe we'll like it). Maybe I can get a job in the government, but I guess we will all have jobs in the government then.

I don't think "alternative energies" can be developed fast enough to cure the current financial crisis. The technology and efficiency of these alternatives are still in their infancy and will take time to develop, lots of it. It would be like trying to produce a baby in 1 month by getting 9 women pregnant. Not going to happen.

"Unfortunately, recently Iceland apparently has gone bankrupt."

Mary, Iceland is one of the most capitalistic countries in the world. Much more so than ours. The market-worshipping Right often uses Iceland as an example of what our country should emulate. I guess they, too, would like our country to be bankrupt. They've done a great job so far...LOL!

Steve G - great idea.

I think that alternative or renewable energy could create jobs, but lets leave the cap and trade system out of the equation. I don't see a reason for it if we are building an energy infrastructure that is emitting less CO2 than the current one.

A plan that utilizes fossil fuels as we bridge to alternative/renewable energy, would not need a carbon cap and trade system, since a transition would reduce CO2 emissions, if that transition included nuclear with wind/solar/hydro/geothermal.

It's a project worthy of the effort by the USA. Imagine what we could do if we spent 700 billion on energy development.

Oil is cheap, but not for long. How long before alternative/renewable energy is on par with oil? Or should I say oil is on par with renewables? The current economic crisis should be an example that oil is pretty tightly tied to the world economy. When it is booming, oil prices soar. When it tanks, so does oil. At mere mention of the government bailing out the banks, oil is back on the rise, with prospects that the economy will recover quickly, and people will be using more oil. Predictions of 150 dollars/barrel of oil are alreay being tossed around, if/when the economy recovers.

Drilling will not solve the oil problem. Other sources of energy will. And, no Randy I'm not saying be one dimensional. I agree that nuclear should be part of the equation.

I know for a fact that Siemens and GE and many other companies are working on better wind turbines that will work more efficiently and create more power. Still many others are working to make solar panels cheap and more efficient. Battery technology is advancing by leaps and bounds. It will not take long, before the technology catches up. These technologies are already creating jobs, because there is a demand for it.

Think of alternative/renewable energy like this:

When the automobile was invented 100 years ago, people laughed and scoffed and continued to drive their horse and buggies. No way was that contraption going to ever replace the horse. We all know the rest of the story. It took a hundred years, but we all drive cars. (No offense to the Amish out there)

Mark - good analogy.

Oiznop, a recent story on a local news program highlighted how the storm sewers are no longer attached to the sewage treatment plant, in an attempt to save money. Consequently, anything that lands on the street, cigarette butts, candy wrappers, condoms, oil, gas, anti-freeze, salt, road grime, all washes directly into Lake Erie whenever it rains. Cleaner water than ever before? NOT! AND - It's not that I advocate anything other than wanting to swim in Lake Erie without bumping into a used condom or a cigarette butt.

Oh, I'd like to add, it was in the 70's and sunny over the weekend and for the past few days. Definitely NOT typical October weather....but very nice I might add!

Regards

Steve,

What you say about a paperless world is interesting, but there is no speeding up the movement, if we ever get there. The reason? People don't trust computers, and the older the person, the more likely they distrust them. Maybe within 30 or 40 years, we'll be largely paperless once the younger generations who are entering the workforce or are several years into it (myself included)and grew up with computers replace the paper.

However, talking to my in-laws who live in a two family home with me and are both in their 60s, convincing the older generations that paper should go the way of the horse and buggy is hopeless. They still use paper checks for everything (even though fraud is far more prevalent with that), and they still subscribe to newspapers and tell me I am uninformed since I don't (there's no convincing them that all the stuff they read in a paper can be found online) to name a couple examples.

The technology is here to get rid of paper, people just don't want to use it. I'm not bashing all people older than myself. There are plenty of people of all ages who trust computers, but the trend is that the older you are, the more likely it is that you don't. I agree...greatly reducing paper use would save trees and reduce carbon emissions and pollution. I think it would be an interesting study to see what the impact of getting rid of paper altogether would be on emissions.

Just where will all these "green jobs" be created? Maybe I can pump ethenol while my family is starving because grain based ethenol has inflated the price of food to astromomical levels.

How about solar? How about wind? How about geothermal? The Federal Government has spent $Billions and $Billions over decades to bring these technologies into the mainstream.

Guess what? They are not there, just like the "green jobs" will not be there.

The extreme environmentalists like Green Peace and the World Wildlife Fund spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year to lobby for their extreme, economy killing agenda.

The economy has just experienced a statistical "Black Swan" event, and the government is doing its best to plug the holes in the financial dikes. We just hope it is not too late.

To say that "green jobs", or a "green economy" will solve any financial problem is just intellectual puffery.

Mark, it looks like Ms. Pelosi and her ilk will have their way on the Hansonian energy agenda next year and President Obama will certainly sign anything he gets from a democratic Congress. No matter what I think, it looks like your "new economic paradigm" will get its chance.

I have serious doubts, but if the AGW energy agenda is inevitable, I will hope you're right and I'm wrong. I will grit my teeth and hope for the best. We'll see.

Mark, Mark, Mark:

The present economy is not at all the responsibility of the current "right" administration. Check your history again. You seem to have a tough time with that.

This ALL started back in the time of El Caminos, Blue Dresses, and wars, oop sorry, conflicts, that REALLY meant nothing to the world.

As far as your salt analogy, nice try, but no cigar.

Oh and it's tough to lower taxes on the 40% of americans who pay nothing. What you and your chosen one are talking about is "wealth redistribution" otherwise known as socialism.

The world is totally dependent on oil and not just for fuel. 500,000 items manufactured are oil based. All manufacturing, mining, transportation, communications, agriculture and forestry would shut down without oil.

All types of alternative energy initiatives will require oil and coal based mining, manufacturing and transportation to get them up and running and to feed the long term parts and maintenance programs, to keep them up and running.

Oil has become so entrenched into our everyday lives, that we tend to take it for granted and hope we can wish it away with some alternative.

Take a real good look into how much alternatives would be dependent on oil based products, and you'll begin to understand how difficult life will be, when the wells do run dry.

If a total alternative to oil based products can be invented to feed the chemical industry, which is 97 percent dependent on oil, that would be a start to a viable alternative.

If you can invent a total alternative to coal and oil for the steel industry, that would also be a great starting point.

I'm curious to know which energies are referred to here. Shift our investment to? Investment dollars will flow to a possible profit. Incentivize? Oh. You mean like how the government incentivized corn based ethanol and the law of unintended consequences took over? That's where something seemed like a good idea at the time, made everyone happy, but didn't work quite as expected because there were things you shoulda thought of but didn't. So large companies sucked up all the tax incentives they could swallow and now there are hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars in unused equipment sitting idle because the economics of production just won't work......

To make an analogy...... imagine that you have a job you really don't like. Not too hard eh? So you start sending out resumes...... and cutting back on your hours while you work the job search. You spend more and more time on the search for the perfect job (energy technology) in the belief that you're right on the cusp....... you have the chance to work lucrative overtime at your existing crummy job to increase your income..... but you turn it down with the idea that it's a crummy job anyway and the time would be better spent finding the new (and as yet unknown) position. You see where this is going? You can't give up the energy source you have before you find another one. You probably wouldn't throw a child into deep water with the idea he won't learn to swim unless he really has to.

Solar and wind will not get the job done folks. Industry requires steady power 24 hours per day 365 days per year. And has anyone given any though to what might happen to the ecosystem when the energy from the sun and wind are removed on a large scale? No? Well surprise surprise surprise.

There are costs associated with the extraction of power from the environment. To pretend that there is some way to avoid paying is simply dishonest and likely dangerous.

In two years, we'll be 12 years into a cooling trend (Really?, that's news to me) that will be hard to explain in the face of rising C02 levels and the next president..... and everyone else will be forced to admit that there may be some value in taking a wait and see
attitude.

So let's just wait and see.

Aaron

Chris B.,I appreciate what your saying, but one thing has changed since the paperless office idea was first conceived; Economics. Because of high energy costs and increased pressure on business to reduce expenses, we now have the confluence of price driven decisions and environmental concerns. While it may be difficult to change individual preferences, this confluence should ease the difficulty in changing business practices. In addition, the government could offer incentives to make this change. After all, I cannot think of any downside. And the U.S. economy was on top of the world when we supplied the leading technologies in the PC or internet revolutions.

As a veteran printing, paper, and office product supplier I intimately know what and where all these expenses(waste)are. Because of business price driven decisions I am looking to change my career. I could either be a business development specialist for paperless technologies or an evangelist for an environmental organization. No one seems to have all the paperless technologies under one business roof. And environmental organizations seem to concentrate on alternate fuels or reduced consumption. CAN ANYONE GUIDE ME TO HOOK UP WITH THE RIGHT BUSINESS OR ORGANIZATION?

Thanks for any time and consideration in this matter.

Steve G.

"Economics is also not your strong suit, Mark. I guess the only good thing about your candidate winning is we will get to experience a real depression and start seeing what socialism is like (hey, maybe we'll like it)."

YAWN...typical lies and fear-mongering from the Right. The only reason we're NOT going to experience a Depression is because the Government is getting involved and stopping the ship from sinking.

Also, Mary, rather than worshiping your false gods of the market, I suggest you look at history. The economy has done better under Democratic regimes than Republican ones. Go look at the data. It's not even close. GDP, median wages, the stock market -- all much better under Democrats. We continue to be told by the radical right that Democrats are going to destroy the economy, but if that was the case, then they're certainly doing a terrible job of accomplishing it. Even the economy during Carter was nowhere near as bad as the Recession of 73-75 under Nixon and 80-82 under Reagan.

And yes, Mary, economics actually is my strong suit. Your weak attempt at using Iceland as an example to prove some point of yours shows how little you know. Iceland is very capitalistic; in fact it is a model that the laissez-faire extremists want us to follow. Now they're bankrupt. Good job!

Reply: C'mon guys and gals, let's keep this on topic!

Let me see if I understand this: We are going to lift ourselves out of economic hard times by taking one of the most pervasive components of the production of just about everything that is used in our world (energy), and making it more expensive. Hmmm...

Economics 101: If, as an example, it takes 1 hour of labor to produce a gallon of gasoline, and 2 hours of labor to produce a gallon of ethanol, who would be willing to use the ethanol? Sorry, but changing to more expensive alternate forms of energy is only going to make the world economic situation worse. It's like paying someone to dig a hole in the ground, and then paying someone else to fill it up again. Both have been paid, but you have nothing to show for it.

You can't change the basic laws of economics, and that means producing the most product for the least input. Anything less is a step backward.

Back in the early 80's I was on a big software (materials management system)implementation project for a large utility. One of the main ideas driving it was the paperless office, it was being widely touted back then. So we tried, but everyone kept printing out stuff, the system would go down, the audit trail was sometimes suspect, and some other issues. Maybe the technology is there now, no more hacking into the systems, no system failures, no one manipulating files since everyone is honest, etc. The funny thing is the people who created, built and programmed computers and actually created the Arpanet (aka internet) are in their 50's, 60's and 70's now, allowed the younger people to have a much easier time playing with their computers

Mark, what the heck does Iceland being a capitalistic country have to do with alternative energy? You still on that switchgrass? Soooo, are you saying alternative energy (no fossil fuel used for energy) will only work for socialistic or non-capitalistic countries? Basically it is your opinion that the USA needs to become a socialistic country before we can go completely on alternative fuels? Well, the good thing is we won't have to change our initials. United Socialists of America.

Well, now I know Mark's salt-oil analogy doesn't make sense, Gary B thinks it's good. LOL

Governments do not create jobs or wealth. Governments only consume resources that have been taken away from the people. Mandates to use politically correct alternate energy sources are just another type of tax.

But will alternative energy provide jobs? If the energy can be produced at a cost lower than conventional sources, then it's an economic gain. If the energy costs more, then it's an economic loss.

The private sector should be able to handle this without a lot of government money. Alternative energy will become more competitive in the future and until such time that it's feasible at large scale, keep using what works. That doesn't mean we can't encourage R&D, but we shouldn't subsidize it, either.

Pelosi is now proposing a 300B stimulus package that includes, among other things, massive infrastructure investments and tax cuts. I haven't seen the proposal yet to solve global warming as part of the stimulus package, but it can't be far away. I always find it interesting when tax cuts are proposed by Democrats in hard times to stimulate growth, yet their pro-growth effects are denied in good times.

Personally, the one area of massive gov't spending I favor (outside of defense) would be a Manhattan project for energy independence, which would include nearly everything on the table. Clean coal, nuclear (although I'm less enthusiastic here than most conservatives), off-shore drilling, wind, geothermal, etc. Then build a wall around the mideast and toss arms over it until they've sorted their issues out.

Mark, economics may be your self-described forte, but you're a little weaker in history than you think. I'm surprised that you weren't aware that the 2Q-3Q 1980 recession was on J. Carter's watch. Reagan didn't take office until the end of Jan 1981, and the economic recovery tax act (note the word recovery) wasn't signed until Aug 1981, which means that there was little time for his policies to take effect and start lifting us out of the Carter malaise before the 4Q 1981 - 1Q 1982 recession. Only in a pipe dream were the Reagan years worse than the Carter administration.

Aaron | October 15, 2008 1:15 AM --- Here are the five year average of teh HadCRUTv3 global surface temperature product:

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/5yrave.jpg

Do notice there is no recent cooling trend, but something of the opposite.

"Mark, what the heck does Iceland being a capitalistic country have to do with alternative energy? You still on that switchgrass?"

Mary, you made two comments in your post about Iceland. You said 1) Iceland exclusively uses alternative energy and 2) Iceland is bankrupt. It was clear -- to anyone with a brain -- that you were making a transparent attempt to link any country that moves to alternative energy will go bankrupt. This is consistent with the usual right-wing tactic of insinuating that moving away from oil means going back to the stone age. So, I'll throw your question right back at you: What the heck does Iceland using alternative energy have to do with going bankrupt? Answer: Nothing -- their current calamity is a result of the same financial crisis we're going through, largely propagated by the laissez-faire extremists.

"Well, now I know Mark's salt-oil analogy doesn't make sense, Gary B thinks it's good. LOL"

You know who else made this analogy, Mary? The Washington Times editorial page. In case you didn't know, the Washington Times is one of the most conservative newspapers in this country. And it's a great analogy.

I've worked as a computer programmer/analyst and problem solver for over 30 years, and 'the paperless office' has been banded about for at least 20 of those. Yet for many tasks I still prefer hard-copy printouts that I can spread out on my desk, view several pages at once, scribble notes on them etc.

Unfortunately there is no good alternative to fossil fuels. Those who don't understand this will learn the painful, expensive way. Those of us who do understand will be drug into the misery pit with you.

Biofuels are good for the destruction of wildlife and will cause a humanitarian disaster like the world has never seen when we have a couple of bad crop years. A fair sized volcanic eruption would cause the starvation of billions.

Wind power can't work without a vast storage medium to accumulate energy. Read about Denmark's experience with wind power.

At $9/watt solar is a joke.

Hydrogen fuel cells. There isn't enough platinum in the earth to build a fuel cell for everyone's car and if there was you couldn't afford the 99.999% pure H it takes to run them. Even if it did work your simply running your car on coal, so we'd have to destroy a couple more mountains each month to get everyone to work and back.

I'm not surprised that Mary would take a cheap shot at me for no reason. Thanks Mary. Is it possible to discuss things here without the petty bullcrap? Just asking.

I suppose Mary also doesn't think that my automobile analogy is a good one either - IE: skeptics back then believed that the automobile would never replace the horse. One hundred years later, millions of cars used for transportation, horses used for recreation (with Amish exceptions of course).

So, yes, not only do I think that Marks analogy is a good one, apparently so do many other people.

I know for a fact that General Electric is hiring more engineers and more blue collar workers, to work in it's "green" business sector. Why? because there is demand, it's profitable and it's needed. Obviously many people are interested in it. Still don't believe that "green" energy technology is big and important? See the link:

http://www.husumwindenergy.com/index.php?id=people-companies&L=1

Review the participating companies at one of the largest wind energy trade shows in the world, held every year. There's a lot of them. Looks like it is very profitable, in demand and creating lots of jobs. Shouldn't the greatest country on earth be the leader on this front?

Last but not least - let's talk about computers and going paperless. I remember back in the 80's, desktop computers were slow, and cost a lot. A Compaq 386 desktop computer with monitor, mouse and keyboard was about $20,000 dollars. People still bought them, even though the technology was new, slow and expensive. Twenty some years later, a Pentium 4 with gigs of ram, flat panel lcd monitor, mouse and keyboard is less than $1000 bucks.

The point is, any new technology will be expensive and inefficient at first, but given time it will improve. If we stop researching and spending money on alternative/sustainable/renewable energy, it will never improve and we will never transition from oil.

I work for a company that is ISO 9000 registered, uses computer technolgy extensively, and is largely paperless. If a multi-billion dollar company can go paperless, how is it such a bad or unrealistic idea?

Hey, didn't John McCain just propose buying back mortgages? Didn't John McCain just vote to buy out the banks, basically nationalizing them? Isn't John McCain stumping for writing checks to the American people for $5,000 to buy healthcare? Hmmm....redistribution of wealth anyone? Socialistic tendencies anyone? Who is the real John Mccain? Doesn't sound to conservative to me. The socialism comments made here sure are pretty hollow when you look at ALL of the facts.

Regards

Gary B.

The point is not paying too much for technology. For example, the Compact 386 that you paid 20,000 for -- its price when introduced in 1986 was 6499.

Uh Mark B - Let's not quibble about the details. The Compaq 386 that I mentioned priced at $20,000, included a larger hard drive (40 megabytes!), more RAM (8 megabytes!) and additional hardware like a 3.5" floppy drive and an additional 12" monitor. The price also included the software, (operating system, word processing software, etc.)

Just FYI, the company that I worked for would not have over paid for said computer, since they aquired bids from several suppliers and went through a thorough purchase evaluation project.

The Pentium 4 that I also mentioned, has a 500 gigabyte hard drive, 3 gigabytes of RAM, 22" LCD monitor, DVD drive, and included software like Windows, etc. all for under $1000. A computer like that would have cost as much as a SUN workstation in the late 80's early 90's. Something to the tune of $40,000!

Please understand my point. Desktop computer technology in the 80's was new, slow and expensive. Where would society be today, if we would have turned our backs on that technology?

The government has helped develop nearly all of the technology that we have available to us today. Airplanes, vehicles, computers, materials, etc. Mostly out of national security neccessity. Sure, things are invented or developed by private individuals or corporations, but many things are funded for that development by the US government. Aiplanes improve because airplane companies develop new technology for military use. Those same technologies eventually make it into the commercial sector.

The government, or EPA, sets regulations regarding pollution or emissions, causing vehicle makers to develop the technology to reduce emissions, and make cars more fuel efficient. That same government provides subsidies and grants to help develop those new technologies. Without that funding, many things simply would not be developed.

Back to the computer. The first computers were developed and were as big as a room. Sixty years later, there are computers that will fit in the palm of your hand. Where will wind, solar, nuclear, and coal energy technologies be in sixty years?

At some point we need to bite the bullet and develop fuels that are not derived from oil. If anything, our national security depends on it.

If you don't think that alternative/renewable/sustainable energy is in the United States national security interests, then you haven't been paying much attention to history or current events.

More info.

Please see this article from the New York Times from 1989. Note the paragraph below:

Analysts said Compaq models will be priced at less than $20,000, and might be as low as $13,000, to compete with a modified version of the 486 that the International Business Machines Corporation made available last month. That compares with $50,000 or more for fully equipped mainframes and $200,000 or more for mainframes of comparable speed and power. Some analysts said Compaq also will introduce a model with two 386 microprocessors.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE2DA143DF935A35752C1A96F948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

Gary B.
For someone who didn't want to quibble about the details, you gave me two posts and 11 paragraphs of quibbling. Doesn't matter - I understand and am sympathetic with most of your points.

Two points I agree with: (1) Energy is tied to national security. I am one hundred percent on board with energy independence for North America.
(2) Markets have to be the answer - not gov't. I think that you were making that point when you said "The best way to advance is for Gov't not to restrict finding and advancing new technology, but at the same time not restrict the current technology before we have replacements for it."

Something I partially agree with is 'think of what we could do if we spent 700B on energy development." I assume you mean energy independence - we spend that much already on development, production, transport, etc. BUT, I don't agree if it is 700B of govt expenditure. My earlier post said that the only massive gov't spending that I support (outside of defense) is a Manhattan project for energy independence. There's an element of truth there, but, realistically, there is not enough money in this country to go around for everything we desire and doesn't appear to be enough for what we need. A 700B bailout, on top of an 85B bailout with a 300B stimulus en route (if the dems win) on top of everything else. This is going to have to be a free market solution where the gov't role is to get out of the way. The internet existed for decades as an insular academic and government entity -- it took the market to make it explode as it did (assisted by largely laissez faire oversight by, gasp, the Clinton Adm and a Republican Congress). If it had been directed, dictated and managed by government we would still be using those 386s on 14.4kbps modems to complain on this blog (and paying anywhere from 6499 - 20k for the privilege). I spent a career in the military -- it is extraordinarily efficient at destruction and equally inefficient at creation. I know of no procurement programs that couldn't be done more cheaply and efficiently if the DoD wasn't involved. The rest of gov't is no better -- we are all better served when gov't permits the market to thrive and gets out of the way!

Where I disagree is over the role of hydrocarbons. The percentage of energy that we develop out of alternative sources will only be on the margin for some time to come. The car analogy for example - the car, tractor etc. were decades old before they replaced draft animals in the US and even longer elsewhere. Not due to resistance but to economics. I'm afraid that oil will be king for some time to come -- let's use up every drop of north American oil in the meantime. When alternative sources find their stride the oil won't do us any good in the ground.