Waxman - Markey : For it or against it?

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 8:37 PM GMT on July 10, 2009

Share this Blog
3
+

Change is on the way

When I started my class on climate change problem solving in the winter of 2006 many of the students in the class had as their number one issue that the U.S. had not signed the Kyoto Protocol. This failure to sign was placed firmly on the Bush Administration. This example provides a place to start to explore the complexity of developing policy. It only takes casual analysis to start to unravel this knot. First, the U.S. had signed the Kyoto Protocol during the Clinton Administration. What the U.S. did not do was to ratify the Kyoto Protocol within our government. In fact, knowing the Kyoto Protocol would go down to certain defeat, the Clinton Administration did not send the Protocol forward for ratification. The U.S. had, however, been a very active participant in the writing of the protocol, which included many provisions to stand at the foundation of a future cap and trade carbon market. The Bush administration maintained that there were fundamental flaws in the Kyoto Protocol, and in fact, there were substantial flaws. It is difficult to look at the Kyoto Protocol and to conclude that it has led to any reduction of the emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

As that first class evolved the students started to talk more about the symbolic and political value of the Kyoto Protocol. In the following years, students coming into the class have placed far less attention on the Kyoto Protocol. Yes, there are political and symbolic consequences that follow from the U.S. not ratifying, and ultimately disowning, the Protocol, but there are lessons learned - we need to move forward with policies and laws and behavior that will really work.

On June 26, 2009 the U.S. House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act, often called the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill. This bill has both been hailed as a historic breakthrough as well as strongly criticized. Negative comments have come from all sides – ranging from those who feel that it does not really address climate change to those who feel that climate change is a dangerous hoax promulgated onto society by conspiratorial elements. The full text and history of the bill can be found at opencongress.org . At the end of the blog I have placed a set of links to analysis and opinion about the bill. ( A good QandA from Washington Post)

A week ago I had a plan of presenting some sort of comprehensive, objective analysis of the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill. I have received a number of summaries and analyses by people and organizations that I respect. I decided that before I wrote such a blog, I would actually look at the whole bill, not just summaries. I have looked at the bill, and it is enormous. It defies my naïve skills. Here are my reactions.

The bill is representative of the participatory government that we have. The issues of all are included in some way or another. The bill does explicitly recognize the link between energy consumption and climate change, and hence, the link to energy security and a robust economy. As such, interests of the coal industry are represented in a way that promotes more environmentally friendly use of coal. This stands in contrast to those who feel that there is no way to use coal in a way that does not damage the environment. Such tensions are built throughout the bill, and this has been the source of hundreds of blogs and comments that have attacked the bill.

That said - everything that I can think of is touched in the bill in some way or another. For example, there is discussion of forestry and the role of trees in cities. There is the question of the length of time carbon dioxide is held in the trees. There are trees in the cities, trees in the National Forests, and trees in diplomacy. There is much to be said about efficiency, how a market might be set up, and ways to motivate the development of alternative energy. There is language to promote the future. There is also language to perpetuate the present, often based on the need to maintain economic stability.

At one level, the bill does lay on the table the issues that are important for addressing climate change and the relation of these issues to energy policy. This is important; that is, getting the issues on the table. On the other hand these issues do not exist in a coherent and integrated fashion in a way that, convincingly, addresses the issue of reducing carbon dioxide emissions and mitigating global warming. It is like the bill is a closet, with a very long closet rod, and every one has made sure that they have something hanging on that rod. This is often the case when something is built through a participatory process; it is the natural result of a process that strives to build majority (or consensus) buy-in.

This process leads to something that is fragmented. While all of the pieces are there, the pieces that are most important are not clearly distinguished from the pieces that are less important. The granularity that separates the near term from the long term is not clear; that is, what are the important things to do first? And the ultimate goals, energy security, a robust economy, and a safe environment - are these fragments brought together in a way that achieves these goals?

The question of whether or not to support the Waxman-Markey Bill then comes down to does this bill work? And if we do not think that it works as written, are getting these issues documented, on the table, and into consideration of essential importance?

The Waxman-Markey Bill is a long way from being law. At this moment it serves as a valuable starting point; it is on its way to the Senate. It is not realistic to expect what will emerge from the Senate and come back to the House will be the law that "solves the climate change problem." The issues are too complex and the constituencies too broad, too volatile, to expect a solution at birth. Therefore, the question becomes is this the bill to build on going forward? Does the bill do the important things in the next 10-20 years that matter to climate change? Are there mechanisms in the bill that, explicitly or implicitly, maintain our current behavior going forward?

My opinion, the Waxman-Markey Bill is an important step, and it is just that – a step. We do not have the luxury of continuing to defer climate policy and controlling greenhouse gas emissions. In the Senate, there will be another round of participatory policy making. And whether or not the American Clean Energy and Security Act is an effective and good legislation will depend on whether or not the bill does the right things in the short-term and lays a flexible and robust foundation for the long-term. It is not, yet, a bill to oppose or support, but it is one to change and to make work.


r



Commentary and Analysis on Waxman-Markey:

Breakthrough Institute

Sightline Institute

Grist 1

Grist 2

Yale Environment 360

The Heartland Institute


Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 88 - 38

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4Blog Index

Dr Roy Spencer is a phD climatologist, FULLY qualified, you might want to check his extensive resume and experience. He does not believe in AGW. But the AGW crowd conveniently ignores him and says his opinion doesn't count(also, many other climatologists and atmospheric scientists who are conveniently ignored). In the mean time, America is going to be taxed to death by this moronic unfair, socialism climate change bill.



Quoting FordPerfect:


Nah, the closed minded are those that choose to dismiss the consensus of climate scientists because the science interferes with their ideology. We certainly know that your stance on the issue didn't come from a careful examination of the data.


Like I said, Roy Spencer IS a climatologist. But I guess he just isnt good enough eh? #1 symptom of BIAS and a scam. Easily spotted! BTW, your ad hominem remarks have NOTHING to do with the topic at hand. Might I suggest you actually discuss the TOPIC AT HAND, rather than expressing a foreign random statement, which makes your credibility go down in the blogosphere.

The issues of all are included in some way or another. The bill does explicitly recognize the link between energy consumption and climate change, and hence, the link to energy security and a robust economy.

Very poor comparison. Our economy is MUCH more complex than to say reducing emissions equals a robust economy. I cant believe you could be so naive to agree with such a simplistic statement.

Hansen was proven wrong in his 1998 forecast, using faulty climate models. Also, that ridiculous hockey stick graph. Apparently the entire world's misery is driven primarily by ONE factor! Temperature! Sounds like a scam.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I had a big post all typed up... but then I realized with this crowd... whats the point?
Member Since: August 3, 2008 Posts: 16 Comments: 5885
Three simple ideas. One common man.

Issue one:

Global warming. Global Cooling. Energy independence and security.

Inconsequential.

Economic warming. Wallet Cooling. Energy liberty and freedom.

The mechanism to achieve alternatives to carbon based energy resources is to innovate and create such alternatives that are economically feasible, ergo - cost less than gasoline at a buck .35 per gallon.

Eco-marxism, environmental tyranny, and theft of private property in America will not prevent the BRICS from conquering the 21st century as they shrug along with ATLAS.


No... I say if you moonbats cannot come up with alternatives that can compete on their own, dollar for dollar with oil... then get out of the way, or get run over.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Ahhh, the ego card from someone with the word 'perfect' included in his self-chosen name. Deliciously poetic. Man, this was fun!
Member Since: August 16, 2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 12463
Quoting theshepherdx:
Don't feel like the Lone Ranger, a lot of people would have liked a bit more discussion. But, like they said, "we won, live with".


I was all for intelligent discussion until all of my ideas started being bashed, and my points studiously avoided. At that point, I knew meaningful debate would be extremely hard to find on here, especially with the apparent environment of being attacked from nearly every angle, without anyone even acknowledging salient, factual points.

So basically... when I don't feel like I am launching myself into a brick wall, I will return to debate.
Member Since: August 3, 2008 Posts: 16 Comments: 5885
Do you not call yourself an engineer?
Science is not limited to those that are granted funding by NSF and teach courses.
I've never counted publications, but it is probably about 15, some publicly available. No, I am not going to point you them, I don't trust many folks here and will hold onto what little anonymity I do have.
Have a lovely evening.
Member Since: August 16, 2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 12463
76. Skyepony (Mod)
I would have liked to Hansen's plan at least looked at. It was simple & rewarded people for making less CO2. Was there a big flaw in it I missed?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting FordPerfect:


Actually, it's a Masters of Science in Civil Engineering. And gainfully employed, by the way. Your turn o' esteemed scientist.


I will gladly admit that I formally only hold a Bachelors, with post-grad education in Numerical Modeling and Atmospheric Chemistry. Had a job offer fall in my lap before thesis time. I have to guess that my handle makes the school rather clear.
Member Since: August 16, 2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 12463
Quoting FordPerfect:
"Is true. I have been looking real hard for real data that supports AGW hypothesis for about 5 years now...not impressed."

Wow, I didn't realize you were among the ranks of "esteemed scientists." My apologies. By the way, where'd you do your post-doctoral work?


I forgive you.
You first: Where did you get your liberal arts doctorate before you went on the unemployment rolls?

Too bad you didn't have a response to any other part of my post so we could talk about the science, data, assumptions, etc. So you think Mann's tree ring proxy is really all about temperature?
Member Since: August 16, 2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 12463
Quoting FordPerfect:
"After all, is there not many esteemed scientist out there that more than ever NOT buying into the AGW theory..."

Nope, not true. Got anything else?


Is true. I have been looking real hard for real data that supports AGW hypothesis for about 5 years now...not impressed. Through that process, I came to find that the only "data" that actually supports it is poorly derived inferences from other measurements, well within huge standard deviations and uncertainties, and that those supporting the hypothesis had to try real hard to make the data fit the mold. The real, raw measurement cannot, thus far, tell us anything useful except what the last 30 years was like. That is all.

Nope, this scientist is not at all convinced in that direction. Moving further the other way, while trying to maintain an open mind with every new research article and presentation. Nor am I alone.

Whom christened it with the status of theory? It is climate. Until enough data collection has occurred to confirm anything at all it will remain a hypothesis, in my opinion.
Member Since: August 16, 2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 12463
Quoting FordPerfect:
"After all, is there not many esteemed scientist out there that more than ever NOT buying into the AGW theory..."

Nope, not true. Got anything else?


That is only because closed minded individuals choose to ignore those scientist, that do not fall in step with the climate change religion...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The bill does explicitly recognize the link between energy consumption and climate change, and hence, the link to energy security and a robust economy.


Dr. Rood would it not have been more accurate to state: The bill does explicitly recognize the alleged, or possible link between energy consumption and climate change, and hence, the link to energy security and a robust economy.


After all, is there not many esteemed scientist out there that more than ever NOT buying into the AGW theory... IS IT NOT STILL JUST A THEORY?????
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting theshepherdx:
IMHO
Hydrogen fission is the winner. But, that puppy is just soooooo darn elusive.


Still alot of heat will go under the greenhouse blanket.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
It actually looks like China, Russia, etc
are the ones leading by example.

They are showing the majority of the rest of the world
how to drive businesses and manufacturing
out of other countries

and into their own countries.
Member Since: August 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 3654
Quoting latitude25:
"Secondly, what better way to force other countries to change than leading by example? Or are we going to follow the mantra "You first, then I'll follow"?"

Jeff, that is a funny post.

I guess you think China, Russia, India, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, on and on to the 130 exempt countries

have never heard of global warming.

We have been leading them by example
in all forms of pollution control for decades,
and they don't care one bit.

This I kind of have to agree with. Many companies go overseas because the same regulations we have in this country to keep our water, soil and air clean, are not in force over there. This probably goes for a lot of things, not just environmental. This might not be the case in developed countries, but I know it's in developing nations.

Oh, and I am for the bill only because it will encourage discussion. If I had to vote on it in the house or senate, I'd probably abstain or not show up. It's hard to vote my conscience when I myself am not firm on the science. (this is why I support fission/fusion/solar - they're good for us whether or not AGW is legitimate)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting theshepherdx:
50
Sounds good.
But, unfortunately nuclear is dead in this country. Every politician and every community would love to reap the benifits, but no one wants it in their back yard. Until the inherent dangers abade and security issues are guaranteed, that too is a moot point.


Correct: Also,nuclear would just add more heat under the greenhouse blanket!
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
53. Lat, I see you sucked into this useless debate here! But, Ricky asked, right? If he didn't want all pertinent opinions he shouldn't have asked. ;P
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
"Secondly, what better way to force other countries to change than leading by example? Or are we going to follow the mantra "You first, then I'll follow"?"

Jeff, that is a funny post.

I guess you think China, Russia, India, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, on and on to the 130 exempt countries

have never heard of global warming.

We have been leading them by example
in all forms of pollution control for decades,
and they don't care one bit.
Member Since: August 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 3654
Quoting paratomic:
I think pumping money into fusion/fission/solar research would be a good bargain. It's the only way to fuel our global population for the next 500 years without severely compromising our modern lifestyle and leaving a trail of destruction in our wake. (Noeone is debating the fact that it's frightening to even imagine what it will be like in 500 years, just based on what we've seen in the past 200. On the other hand, we're likely to overcome many of hte things we presently feel are threats to our survival and to the planets health.) It won't be done with windmills and other pseudo-alternatives (these can only assist, they cannot solve), or lots of green intentions. We need something to replace fossil fuels for transportation and energy, and our best bet is to have nuclear as our base, with a smart grid of some kind (lots of money may be needed to rebuild our grid so that it can sustain a solar flare like the one in 1859) that can be used to charge electrics in a way that does not interrupt our lives, supplemented by a strong solar power movement both on residential terms and on a corporate scale. Instead of burying our radioactive waste in a gigantic monolithic big dollar project, we can recycle our waste using newer methods being developed. Rather than being stuck wiht waste that'll be emitting energetic particles for thousands of years, we could reduce the lifetime of these radioactives to 30 years or so. This, combined with an active solar power industry that's growing alongside its nuclear friend, might be the silver bullet that we need to get back on our feet so that our socieyt can make the needed adjustments to survive this fast changing world. Our society absolutely depends on low cost energy, on large scales, and any answer that we bring to the table must also be low cost - and clean!

The problem with all of this is that it's not easy, it's not cheap. World War II wasn't easy either. If AGW oneday threatens our way of life like hitler did, will we all be ready to make the changes necessary? Making our country independent wasn't easy. Removing slavery wasn't easy. Building our interstate highways wasn't easy - i've heard that there're enough roads in our country to wrap around the planet 160x!!! (gawd, is that true???) Going to the moon wasn't easy. Building the telecommunications networks wasn't easy. Giving people access to low cost computing systems wasn't easy. Once we know we must do these things, I believe we will. Just like we have in the past. We cannot depend on a 100 year old infrastructure that's deteriorating in front of our eyes - it's not an option.


Quite possibly the best post of the thread.
Member Since: August 3, 2008 Posts: 16 Comments: 5885
I think pumping money into fusion/fission/solar research would be a good bargain. It's the only way to fuel our global population for the next 500 years without severely compromising our modern lifestyle and leaving a trail of destruction in our wake. (Noeone is debating the fact that it's frightening to even imagine what it will be like in 500 years, just based on what we've seen in the past 200. On the other hand, we're likely to overcome many of hte things we presently feel are threats to our survival and to the planets health.) It won't be done with windmills and other pseudo-alternatives (these can only assist, they cannot solve), or lots of green intentions. We need something to replace fossil fuels for transportation and energy, and our best bet is to have nuclear as our base, with a smart grid of some kind (lots of money may be needed to rebuild our grid so that it can sustain a solar flare like the one in 1859) that can be used to charge electrics in a way that does not interrupt our lives, supplemented by a strong solar power movement both on residential terms and on a corporate scale. Instead of burying our radioactive waste in a gigantic monolithic big dollar project, we can recycle our waste using newer methods being developed. Rather than being stuck wiht waste that'll be emitting energetic particles for thousands of years, we could reduce the lifetime of these radioactives to 30 years or so. This, combined with an active solar power industry that's growing alongside its nuclear friend, might be the silver bullet that we need to get back on our feet so that our socieyt can make the needed adjustments to survive this fast changing world.

Our society absolutely depends on low cost energy, on large scales, and any answer that we bring to the table must also be low cost - and clean! Just satisfying our energy needs cleanly and cost effectively is only the start, however. We need those things just to be world citizens - to be able to educate ourselves and have a standard of living above 3rd world. It's a long road! It's even overwhelming.

The problem with all of this is that it's not easy, it's not cheap. World War II wasn't easy either. If unsustainability oneday threatens our way of life like hitler did, will we all be ready to make the changes necessary? Making our country independent wasn't easy. Removing slavery wasn't easy. Building our interstate highways wasn't easy - i've heard that there're enough roads in our country to wrap around the planet 160x!!! (gawd, is that true???) Going to the moon wasn't easy. Building the telecommunications networks wasn't easy. Giving people access to low cost computing systems wasn't easy. Once we know we must do these things, I believe we will. Just like we have in the past. We cannot depend on a 100 year old infrastructure that's deteriorating in front of our eyes - it's not an option.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting crucilandia:
1. no statistically significant trend on ATM temperature in the past 20 yrs





2. Temperature followed other cycles in the past 100 yrs


Excellent graphics, thank you crucilandia. On the first one, am I correct in that the solid line that is moving more smoothly is a running 2 year average?

The second graphic is more telling, as it has a longer term, and I would love to see it extended out another 50-100 years, so a longer-term trend can be found (if there is one). The solar minimum we are getting right now seems to be starting to impact weather.
Member Since: August 3, 2008 Posts: 16 Comments: 5885
Quoting atmoaggie:
First off, this is NOT a debate about NASA. Here is a link from NASA about successful commercial spinoffs that directly result from the space program.

Funny, that. My company, an operational marine forecasting outfit, is a NASA spinoff. I owe my current job specifically to that process.

How did you know, Jeff?


I didn't know about your situation specifically, actually. I am very defensive of NASA for 3 reasons: First, I love space, and space exploration. Secondly, NASA is a HUGE employer in the Houston area (and my company directly benefits from NASA). Third, my little sister (who was born with a heart defect) is alive due largely to medical advances that came from NASA.
Member Since: August 3, 2008 Posts: 16 Comments: 5885
First off, this is NOT a debate about NASA. Here is a link from NASA about successful commercial spinoffs that directly result from the space program.

Funny, that. My company, an operational marine forecasting outfit, is a NASA spinoff. I owe my current job specifically to that process.

How did you know, Jeff?
Member Since: August 16, 2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 12463
Quoting theshepherdx:
MOOT POINT:

This Bill is a Stumbling Block and a massive invasion on State's Rights and further tax burden not a Begining.

It's interesting to take a look inside a modern classroom and see where our children and grand children get some of their pie-in-the-sky Eutopian ideas.

Without the full support and participation of China, India and the rest of the worst polluting nations in the world, such Bills are MOOT. And until China no longer holds our mortgage, I can't see us demanding anything of them.

We don't need to command states to require electric outlets in the garages of America for electric cars with dinosaur batteries, nor does the Federal Goverment need to seek other means of interferring. The EPA tried several years ago to force States to comply with NPDES at the Federal level, but soon found that the States were best suited to devise and enforce their own NPDES interpretations.

T. Boone has basicaly taken his bat and ball and gone home. Yeah, everyone talks a good game, but when it comes down to the brass tacks of mitigating transmission lines, where's the beef?

We are not now, nor have we ever been a global leader. We have been the global parrachute for failed Misguided or Criminal governments and factions who so quickly point their crooked fingers in our face as they run back to their banks with our money.

The good Dr. Hansen needs to sit quitely in his office as an ever increasing segment of society is begining to wonder if NASA may need to table some of their projects and use that money somewhere else. Like extending unemployemant benifits. Some will say that a mission to Mars or the Moon may take a back seat to a mission to the grocery store by the unemployed. Some may say they would rather not trade groceries for more pixels on a weather satelite. I happen to agree with them.



First off, this is NOT a debate about NASA. Here is a link from NASA about successful commercial spinoffs that directly result from the space program. Everything from fire resistant polymer fabrics to Lithium Ion batteries to more aerodynamic semi trucks.
http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/


Secondly, what better way to force other countries to change than leading by example? Or are we going to follow the mantra "You first, then I'll follow"?

Additionally... T. Boone Pickens has ALWAYS talked a big talk, but not been able to follow it. The issue this time was the lack of transmission capacity to the DFW/Austin/Houston area. (which is a known issue in Texas)


And finally... before you point the fingers towards people with axes to grind and agendas to accomplish... take a look at your own writing. It is pretty easy to see it in your own writing, too.
Member Since: August 3, 2008 Posts: 16 Comments: 5885
1. no statistically significant trend on ATM temperature in the past 20 yrs





2. Temperature followed other cycles in the past 100 yrs

Member Since: March 6, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 2212
All the energy we need is located in deep western boundry currents.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
43. EvPv
The environmental movement, AGW and Climate Change groups should push a viewpoint that people see right now: national security.

For those who think that is just a scare tactic, look at eastern Europe when Russia shut off their natural gas supplies during the heating season twice in the last few years.

While we do not get oil from Iran, U.S. usage keeps the price of oil higher so Iran can get the higher financial return from the countries they sell to.

The national security issue is a long one, but in the end, I do not have the moral right to expect our military personnel to fight for an energy source, never mind for me to waste it.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Jeffs713,

Where does the heat energy in the radiator dissipate its energy?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Quoting atmoaggie:


We do agree on some of the above. My way would be to fund more research into the alternative fuels for the next 20 years. Being hasty with taxing the one type of energy that works and subsidizing otherwise unprofitable, unreliable, and ineffectual energy sources is a bad idea. Once the means to support energy consumption, even with more efficient use of energy, is actually viable, profitable, and effective, it will begin to supplant fossil fuels all by itself. The technology is not there yet.

Just because consumption of fossil fuels gets taxed, doesn't mean that another source of energy actually becomes adept at maintaining our lifestyle, research, manufacturing capabilities, and all of the other things one might call us a world leader in. Energy availability and dependability is undeniably a huge reason this country is on that so-called pedestal.


Exactly. Thats why I gave the W-M act an F in planning priorities.

One factoid of interest: The internal combusion engine is very inefficient. Over 70% of the energy generated by burning gasoline or any other hydrocarbon is wasted in the form of heat. (think about it... we use antifreeze/coolant to cool an engine... all of the energy is allowed to dissipate in the radiator, without actually performing any work)
Member Since: August 3, 2008 Posts: 16 Comments: 5885
Quoting jeffs713:


Correct. I am by no means implying that they are all correct. What I am trying to get at here is that while there is a chance they can all be wrong, there is an equal chance they can be all right too.

Lets break this debate down to some very simple facts:

1. CO2 is a proven greenhouse gas. (among other gases)
2. Humankind pumps out a lot of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
3. Global temperatures, over the past 100 years, are rising.
4. Global resources (from raw materials to fresh water) are becoming more scarce, as humankind grows in population.
5. We don't know the full impact of our actions yet.

Even if you toss out #3 due to its disputed nature, humankind as a whole is not in a good situation. Something needs to be done to promote sustainability. While I am personally against the idea of demonizing one output of human consumption (CO2), we as a species are going down a route of non-sustainability. We can choose to keep on doing things to maintain the status quo in the short term, or we can make changes as a global economy to promote sustainability, and work WITH nature, rather than against it.

As for the argument "why not let someone else take the first step, we are in a recession here!"... Most of us live in the USA. We have been seen as a global leader for most of the last 100 years. When a recession hits, if you don't change your ways, you are just setting yourself up for another recession.


We do agree on some of the above. My way would be to fund more research into the alternative fuels for the next 20 years. Being hasty with taxing the one type of energy that works and subsidizing otherwise unprofitable, unreliable, and ineffectual energy sources is a bad idea. Once the means to support energy consumption, even with more efficient use of energy, is actually viable, profitable, and effective, it will begin to supplant fossil fuels all by itself. The technology is not there yet.

Just because consumption of fossil fuels gets taxed, doesn't mean that another source of energy actually becomes adept at maintaining our lifestyle, research, manufacturing capabilities, and all of the other things one might call us a world leader in. Energy availability and dependability is undeniably a huge reason this country is on that so-called pedestal.
Member Since: August 16, 2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 12463
Atmo, reading over your last 2 posts, I think that you and I agree more than initially thought. We are just saying it completely differently. hehe
Member Since: August 3, 2008 Posts: 16 Comments: 5885

Viewing: 88 - 38

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.

Local Weather

Mostly Cloudy
52 °F
Mostly Cloudy