Living Car Free - candidates and 'energy independence'

On Charlie Rose I just saw Mike Huckabee explain that he would strive to achieve energy independence for the U.S. within ten years' time.

Could that possibly be done without the bicycle? I doubt it.

Could that even be done with the bicycle? The U.S. imports something like 58 per cent of its petroleum and that figure is expected to increase drastically in the next number of years. It might be possible to eventually find a way to achieve energy independence, but it's going to take a lot longer than a decade.

Did he mention any details? Since he supports the war in Iraq, I wonder if his "energy independence" plan might be the same as Bush's, i.e., occupy petroleum-producing countries and grab their oil.

Could be done. A whole bunch of new nuke plants, no new gas powered personal use cars, electric use only for personal use. Save the oil for the trucking industry.

Not unless we greatly downsize our personal consumption habits.

Energy independance and all of the other energy concerns have become a speaking point of politicians because of popular opinion and pop-culture. They are politicians. Very rarely do any of them every actually care about the topics that they claim to be proficient enough in to make national decisions. I hate these pre-election rhetoric speeches. They mean nothing.

If Mike Huckabee, or anyone else for that matter, wants to talk about evironmental issues, they had better show me their level of interest before the topic became popular before they get any of my attention.

.... occupy petroleum-producing countries and grab their oil.

That is one obvious approach. Why isn't it working? Maybe it is, oil is selling at high prices but gasoline is still under $3.00/gallon here. None of the candidates seem to be car free friendly. Even if the country were "energy independent", car free living would be too nice to give up.

Everyday when I bike to work, I notice that most people are commuting to work in their car by themselves. Hardly ever see any car with two people in it. Even otherwise majority of people travel in their cars by themselves. This is highly wasteful. I simply cannot believe how spoiled drivers are in the west.

Also, what is the deal with young American women and gas guzzling four wheel drive SUVs? I know plenty of females who are deep down in debt and are hardly making ends meet, who would not trade in their truck for a small economical car. What gives?

I also think it could be done if the will is there. It would take a massive switch to coal / nuclear and a big investment in alternatives. Or, a large tax on existing sources would pretty much take care of everything in one fell swoop.

I also think it could be done if the will is there. It would take a massive switch to coal / nuclear and a big investment in alternatives. Or, a large tax on existing sources would pretty much take care of everything in one fell swoop.

Anyone that gives a damn about the environment should not even be considering burning more coal. If we build more nuclear plants, it should be done in order to move away from coal.

Huckabee is the real deal. You may or may not agree with him on any issue, but he is one of the rare politicians who is genuine. Not a flip flopper, not a "say whatever will get me elected" guy. Just a legitimate person. Interestingly, I am sure he would be hugely in favor of cycling. He was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes a few years ago and decided to completely overhaul his lifestyle. He began running and lost over 100 pounds and now runs marathons.

Huckabee is the real deal. You may or may not agree with him on any issue, but he is one of the rare politicians who is genuine. Not a flip flopper, not a "say whatever will get me elected" guy.


And yet he gave a standard worthless feel good response to a very serious question which affects our national security and economy. He is in favor of energy independence huh? He probably also favors health care for orphans, locking up repeat sex offenders, a strong military, and lower taxes so you can keep "your hard-earned money". "I support US energy independence" they say, and what they mean is more drilling, more mining and more subsidies to ethanol producers. It is insulting that they bring up ethanol. Want to show you are doing something about our energy problems? Just say you support more ethanol production and the foolish voters won't notice that we haven't done anything at all. Want to get elected? Just sound pro-farmer for that important Iowa vote so you can start off strong and raise money for your campaign.

Huckabee is the real deal. You may or may not agree with him on any issue, but he is one of the rare politicians who is genuine. Not a flip flopper, not a "say whatever will get me elected" guy. Just a legitimate person.

I don't know if we should be talking politics here, but I can't let that statement go by without responding.

I wish he'd "flip flop" and change his stance on this terrible war, which he supports. Admitting he was wrong and not allowing any more innocent people to die would make him a much more "legitimate person" in my book.

Anyone that gives a damn about the environment should not even be considering burning more coal. If we build more nuclear plants, it should be done in order to move away from coal.

I tend to agree with you, but the thread was about energy independence

Huckabee is the real deal. Not a flip flopper, not a "say whatever will get me elected" guy.

Another take on this is that he will not respond to and represent the desires of the electorate, but rather, he will do whatever he personally thinks is right without regard to the opinions of the people he supposedly represents.

Another take on this is that he will not respond to and represent the desires of the electorate, but rather, he will do whatever he personally thinks is right without regard to the opinions of the people he supposedly represents.

I hardly think he is doing what "he personally thinks is right." What Big Oil and AIPAC thinks is in their interest is more like it.

I hardly think he is doing what "he personally thinks is right." What Big Oil and AIPAC thinks is in their interest is more like it.

Well, there is that possibility too.

One of the biggest problems we face is that there is a lack of public engagement on some level. Public behavior is not consistent with the type and degree of problems we confront. To be specific: We (the U.S.) are at war. Like it or lump it, we effectively are at war. Iraq is quite small, also, compared to what we might end up being engaged in. We have serious debt problems. We the people are making almost no sacrifices at all. There are no special taxes to pay for the war, no volunteering to help out, nothing. I don't even know what one can do, anyway. There are no shortages, so there is no day-to-day reminder of what is going on. And, there is no serious effort to attack the consumption that leads to the excessive interest in that part of the world. Perhaps the media are too concentrated. Perhaps the oil companies have such influence that they more or less collude in avoiding any policy that might amount to a decreased use.

I think if the country went on a serious campaign of promoting public transportation, in some way vilifying or penalizing cars of excessive size and number, and encouraging biking and walking by making roadway paths safe enough for a child to use, we could solve these problems quite rapidly. The country is lethargic and nonresponsive, comatose almost. We keep doing the same things, and keep getting deeper into the doodoo. And we keep getting fatter and fatter, too. We're going to be less and less able to field an army, in fact, because we're so fat and slovenly, and getting worse. Very pampered and selfish and unhealthy.

There is no talk of sacrifice in our country. Just self-fulfillment, and growth. Prosperity and happiness. Somewhere in the distance, some people are "attacking our way of life", but they are like flies at a picnic. Even the war itself is mostly just on credit. Can't slow down that consumption, man, don't slow it down. And get a bigger house too while you're at it. You deserve it. Etc.

One thing I thought was fascinating, I forget where I read it, was that somebody somewhere made some television spots that highlight bicycling and criticize car driving, and the networks wouldn't air them. So we literally can't get anything rolling in the right direction. Can't draw public attention to the idea that biking is better than car use.

One of the biggest problems we face is that there is a lack of public engagement on some level. Public behavior is not consistent with the type and degree of problems we confront.

One thing that amazes me is how the current bunch of presidential candidates seem to dance around a few of these issues. I don't think I've heard any of them recommend a balanced budget... if anyone in the US would even know what that means :eek:

Another issue is the current state of the US dollar, which over the last few months has been sinking like a stone. Probably a big factor in why oil is now $95 a barrel.

Grist (http://www.grist.org/) has interviews and fact sheets on all presidential candidates' positions on the environment and energy. Read those and we can have a meaningful discussion.

Spoiler Alert: A couple candidates have serious plans for ending not only foreign dependence, but all carbon use. (Hint: they ain't Republicans or the top 2 Democrats.)

"...he praises just about every energy source you can think of -- nuclear, "clean coal," wind, solar, hydrogen, biomass, biodiesel, corn-based ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, oil from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other untapped domestic areas, and, yes, conservation too." Huckabee (http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/10/02/huckabee/)

They don't seem to be aware of leg power as an energy source. Hm.

"...he praises just about every energy source you can think of -- nuclear, "clean coal," wind, solar, hydrogen, biomass, biodiesel, corn-based ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, oil from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other untapped domestic areas, and, yes, conservation too." Huckabee (http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/10/02/huckabee/)

They don't seem to be aware of leg power as an energy source. Hm.

There's no such thing as "clean coal."

There's no such thing as "clean coal."

This might refer to coal that's first gasified (to eliminate particulates, toxins, sulfur, etc.) and then burned with a system to capture the carbon that's emitted. The captured carbon is then stored (sequestered), possibly in a depleted oil well. This is evidently doable with present technology. It would probably take carbon taxation to make it economically viable.

This might refer to coal that's first gasified (to eliminate particulates, toxins, sulfur, etc.) and then burned with a system to capture the carbon that's emitted. The captured carbon is then stored (sequestered), possibly in a depleted oil well. This is evidently doable with present technology. It would probably take carbon taxation to make it economically viable.

According to what I read (http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/Clean-Coal-Oxymoron.htm), "clean coal" is an oxymoron.

Regards,

Ek

According to what I read (http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/Clean-Coal-Oxymoron.htm), "clean coal" is an oxymoron.

Regards,

Ek

Thanks for the link. The author made some valid points, especially about the extraction of coal being inherently dirty. However, the author is evidently unaware of fairly new technology called "carbon capture and storage" (CCS). This is the cornerstone of most plans to end dependence on foreign energy, while at the same time making a significant reduction in the emission of greenhouse gases.

MIT did an extensive study of coal and CCS technology (http://web.mit.edu/coal/). Here is a summary of the findings:

# Coal is a low-cost, per BTU, mainstay of both the developed and developing world, and its use is projected to increase. Because of coal's high carbon content, increasing use will exacerbate the problem of climate change unless coal plants are deployed with very high efficiency and large scale CCS is implemented.

# CCS is the critical enabling technology because it allows significant reduction in CO2 emissions while allowing coal to meet future energy needs.

# A significant charge on carbon emissions is needed in the relatively near term to increase the economic attractiveness of new technologies that avoid carbon emissions and specifically to lead to large-scale CCS in the coming decades. We need large-scale demonstration projects of the technical, economic and environmental performance of an integrated CCS system. We should proceed with carbon sequestration projects as soon as possible. Several integrated large-scale demonstrations with appropriate measurement, monitoring and verification are needed in the United States over the next decade with government support. This is important for establishing public confidence for the very large-scale sequestration program anticipated in the future. The regulatory regime for large-scale commercial sequestration should be developed with a greater sense of urgency, with the Executive Office of the President leading an interagency process.

The coal industry is using CCS as an excuse to continue polluting. If they think this technology is viable, fine, let's see them go ahead with it, but in the meantime we need to stop subsidizing them and place a moratorium on coal. Here's an interesting exchange from an interview with Dr. James Hansen:

You made a bold statement by calling for a moratorium on coal without carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology. Does the attention and recognition paid to CCS technology divert money and energy from clean energy and efficiency technologies?

It certainly should not. CCS technology is still somewhat of a mirage. As of yet there is no “clean coal” in reality, and commercial availability is probably at least 10 years away with current efforts. If a requirement is placed that coal can only be used if it is truly clean, that will cause a sudden stop in any increased use of coal. Efficiency and renewable energies are likely to be the big winners from such a constraint, at least for a decade and perhaps forever. CCS may be so expensive that it will cause a big change in the attractiveness of coal. Coal is presently very cheap, partly because it is often subsidized and because it almost never has to pay for the environmental damage it does, including mercury pollution of lakes and oceans.

The rest of the interview is here (http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2007/08/13/an-interview-with-james-hansen/).

The coal industry is using CCS as an excuse to continue polluting. If they think this technology is viable, fine, let's see them go ahead with it, but in the meantime we need to stop subsidizing them and place a moratorium on coal. Here's an interesting exchange from an interview with Dr. James Hansen:

You made a bold statement by calling for a moratorium on coal without carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology. Does the attention and recognition paid to CCS technology divert money and energy from clean energy and efficiency technologies?

It certainly should not. CCS technology is still somewhat of a mirage. As of yet there is no “clean coal” in reality, and commercial availability is probably at least 10 years away with current efforts. If a requirement is placed that coal can only be used if it is truly clean, that will cause a sudden stop in any increased use of coal. Efficiency and renewable energies are likely to be the big winners from such a constraint, at least for a decade and perhaps forever. CCS may be so expensive that it will cause a big change in the attractiveness of coal. Coal is presently very cheap, partly because it is often subsidized and because it almost never has to pay for the environmental damage it does, including mercury pollution of lakes and oceans.

The rest of the interview is here (http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2007/08/13/an-interview-with-james-hansen/).

I read this as support of CCS. Also, I agree that it's 10 years off-- in fact, probably more than 10 years. That's still quicker than any other proposals that I'm aware of.

The way to make coal pay for the environmental damage it does is to slap on a carbon tax. An article in Science last year estimated that a $50 to $100 tax per ton of carbon would make CCS the only economical way to burn it.

I don't think CCS is the single long-term solution to warming. I think it's one aspect of the only solution that can be made to work in the short time remaining. (The other aspects involve conservation, efficiency and sustainable power sources.) It's a big world and a lot of people need energy. There's nothing in the pipeline right now that can take the place of coal. And there's no way that China and India (or the US) are going to be persuaded not to use coal. So what are you going to do?

BTW, I noticed your blurb for Kucinich. Does he not advocate CCS?

Politicians talking about "energy independence" is just this years version of kissing babies. Its just a way to sound like you care without actually doing anything. Have any of this year's offering presented any real fleshed out policy statements about what they will do to make us energy independent? I think not, and if they have, they're certainly not in any position to make a serious go for the presidency.

It seems to me that if any of these politicians were evenly mildly serious about reducing energy consumption, someone would start with reviving the public transportation system in this country. We haven't had a public transportation system in this county of any value for at least 60 years, except for in a few major cities. We have a light rail system that the Bulgarians would be ashamed of. And the public transportation we have is so fragmented that even if you try to get use it, you either have to stay on a bus line for an extra hour, or there's nothing to connect the various bus lines and such.

This is all a way for me to say that I seriously doubt the sincerity of anyone talking about energy independence this season, even if they're on the left and especially if they're on the right.

Have any of this year's offering presented any real fleshed out policy statements about what they will do to make us energy independent? I think not, and if they have, they're certainly not in any position to make a serious go for the presidency.


Edwards has a very well articulated policy on environment and energy. You can read more about all the candidates, including fact sheets and interviews, at Grist.org (http://www.grist.org/). Kucinich and Edwards seem especially strong on public transit, an issue that you specifically mentioned s being important. Grist asked tham all about this issue, IIRC.

As for a serious go at the presidency, we get the leaders we deserve. Hardly anybody (including, judging by this post, YOU) takes the trouble to learn what the candidates' stands actually are. We choose to select leaders based on how photogenic they are, or we vote against them for trivial reasons and false attack ads. We have an irrational fear of any candidate with ideas for dealing with the various problems we face. If you want a leader who cares about public transit, then do your homework and find one. Send him/her a few bucks and talk her/him up among your friends and co-workers.

I hardly think he is doing what "he personally thinks is right." What Big Oil and AIPAC thinks is in their interest is more like it.

Please tell me you did not just go there. It really bothers me when so called liberals buy into the anti-semitic BS that some cabal of Jews somehow control US foreign policy. Come on Ekdog please tell me you are smarter than that and please keep that subtle anti-semitic garbage off this forum.

Dear Izengabe,

Please be so kind as to tell me what is anti-semitic about criticizing what I perceive as the undue influence exerted by certain lobbies in Washington. I mentioned the the oil lobby in the same sentence, but you didn't jump to their defence. Is AIPAC beyond reproach? Should mum be the word when we read stories like this one (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201554.html?hpid=sec-politics) because we don't want to ruffle any feathers and be accused of hating Jews? Are we to look the other way as members of that organization conspire to obtain classified information and pass it to members of the media and the Israeli government?

By the way, I have Jewish friends who are also critical of AIPAC. Is that okay with you or do you consider them to be--let me guess--"self-haters"?

Shalom,

Ekdog

Dear Izengabe,

Please be so kind as to tell me what is anti-semitic about criticizing what I perceive as the undue influence exerted by certain lobbies in Washington. I mentioned the the oil lobby in the same sentence, but you didn't jump to their defence. Is AIPAC beyond reproach? Should mum be the word when we read stories like this one (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201554.html?hpid=sec-politics) because we don't want to ruffle any feathers and be accused of hating Jews? Are we to look the other way as members of that organization conspire to obtain classified information and pass it to members of the media and the Israeli government?

By the way, I have Jewish friends who are also critical of AIPAC. Is that okay with you or do you consider them to be--let me guess--"self-haters"?

Shalom,

Ekdog
Since you were the one who brought it up, and it would be a good idea to swing back to the topic at hand....

Which candidates have accepted money from AIPAC? How much did they get? Is there evidence that the contributions influenced their stands on energy independence? What is AIPAC's stand on energy policy (if any)?

Politicians talking about "energy independence" is just this years version of kissing babies. Its just a way to sound like you care without actually doing anything. Have any of this year's offering presented any real fleshed out policy statements about what they will do to make us energy independent? I think not, and if they have, they're certainly not in any position to make a serious go for the presidency.

It seems to me that if any of these politicians were evenly mildly serious about reducing energy consumption, someone would start with reviving the public transportation system in this country.

It may have something to do with fears of depressing consumer spending. Cars are big-ticket items, and car maintenance is also costly. To hit up against cars in a big way might stimulate a recession. It's something we still manufacture, to some extent, and it's our pride, really, to make cars. "What's good for General Motors is good for the U.S.A.!" Etc. Also I think our cousin Big Earl is against anything that would tamper with the American love affair with the automobile.

Save the oil for the trucking industry.Yeah fer sure, cuz moving stuff by rail is unpossible. :p

Edwards has a very well articulated policy on environment and energy. You can read more about all the candidates, including fact sheets and interviews, at Grist.org (http://www.grist.org/). Kucinich and Edwards seem especially strong on public transit, an issue that you specifically mentioned s being important. Grist asked them all about this issue, IIRC.

As for a serious go at the presidency, we get the leaders we deserve. Hardly anybody (including, judging by this post, YOU) takes the trouble to learn what the candidates' stands actually are. We choose to select leaders based on how photogenic they are, or we vote against them for trivial reasons and false attack ads. We have an irrational fear of any candidate with ideas for dealing with the various problems we face. If you want a leader who cares about public transit, then do your homework and find one. Send him/her a few bucks and talk her/him up among your friends and co-workers.

Yes, I have read Edwards positions on this (for laughs & grins about 10 days back), so perhaps you ought not to be so quick to judge. But suggesting his position somehow is a stand in for a reasonable policy from a viable candidate isn't productive. He's not electable and none of the policy statements from the candidates who are in such a position are useful. Telling me that Dennis Kucinich has a wonderful energy plan is about as useful as telling us that pixies are going to sprinkle fairy dust over the ozone and CO2 emissions will magically disappear.

Don’t mistake my cynicism for a lack of enthusiasm about Dennis. I volunteered a good share of my time to his election campaign in the 2004 race, where he at least pretended he could win. His lack of vigor and enthusiasm this go have been depressing. He’s one of the few people in the congress fighting the good fight (I would have included Sherrod Brown alongside him, but he recently earned a promotion to the senate). But having said all that, his purpose in these elections seems to be to say the right things, get treated roughly by the press, and then to fall in line and endorse the machine democrat nominee. There’s nothing surprising about it. Edward’s will do the same thing.

The real problem is not that there are not good candidates, because we have usually 2 or 3 fine ones per season. The real problems are structural, and they are not problems that simply electing the right politician every 4 years will solve. Any real change in this country has not been the result of electing candidate X or Y; it’s been the result of a social movement. You can trace any change in this country to one, because by and large it’s the only thing that those in power respond to. They respond to widespread movements to change the way society is organized. Is there such a movement in this country? No. If there was, we wouldn’t be agonizing over candidate X’s position on a message board, we’d be out organizing. And by organizing, I don’t mean giving money to political candidates over the internet. We have an election system that is utterly corrupt, which requires politicians to ***** themselves out every 4 years to beg for the money which they use to propagandize each of us and carpet bomb the nation in campaign adds. This is a structural problem. Dealing yourself into this rigged game of cards does not mean that you can win. You have to change the game.

Occasionally we even have someone with real promise get elected to the office. Bill Clinton who despite his escalation of the drug war, the passage of NAFTA, coziness with Wall Street and taste for deregulation in all its forms, and general failure as a politician, began as someone with real promises to the left. His policy statements on the issues of his day were very strong. The problems are not the policies or the lack of promises. It’s the system that these candidates have to work within. It’s trying to make people use green transportation system when we have an economy that is built to support and depend upon the opposite. It’s trying to treat the rising obesity problem in a system where the government subsidizes the raw ingredients for processed garbage foods that are so profitable for the Kelloggs, Altrias, and Cargills of the world. It’s a lot of different issues, but the answer is the same: change the structural issues that nourish the problems. And the only way that’ll happen is when there is a social movement strong enough to force that change, when there is a force that whatever politician happens to be in power cannot ignore. Until we have one of those (if we ever have another), we’ll continue to have machine democrats kissing babies, and unelectable ones offering us the moon, the stars, & the sky.

Or, if that was TLDR, worry less about electoral politics, get politically active in your community, and for the love of Jove spend a few hours each week volunteering anywhere, the specifics don’t matter.

*Sorry for the novel, I’m working night shift at work and I’m painfully bored.

Koz,

Thanks for the long and very eloquent reply.

I tend to agree that a social movement is the only path to real change in our ineffective quasi-democracy, but sometimes candidates--especially unsuccessful ones--are the leaders or the voice of a social movement. A good example: McCarthy in March of 1968, who toppled Johnson and forced the Democrats to about-face to an anti-war platform.

Why do you think this is not happening now? Why don't we have a strong social movement pushing and being pulled by a leader like McCarthy or Bobby Kennedy? The issues are there, as always. We have a war that's just as stupid and unpopular as Vietnam, but so little resistance to that war. The erosion of our freedom should be another galvanizing issue, and so should the whole mish-mash called globalization. Global warming should be an even bigger issue, since it's an even bigger threat. But almost nothing is happening. Why is that, Koz?

Yeah fer sure, cuz moving stuff by rail is unpossible. :p
All nocarthink is unpossible. Thoughtcrime. Doubleplusungood.

Why do you think this is not happening now? Why don't we have a strong social movement pushing and being pulled by a leader like McCarthy or Bobby Kennedy?

Because there's no draft?

Because there's no draft?

Maybe. You're saying that people don't feel an imminent personal threat to their lives right now, so they're not getting involved?

(OT--the National Guardsmen who've had to serve 15 month tours in Iraq, and who weren't allowed to leave the Guard when their time was up-- they might feel like there is a draft.)

Maybe. You're saying that people don't feel an imminent personal threat to their lives right now, so they're not getting involved?

That's right. I'm old enough to remember the Vietnam debacle and the protests that grew and grew as the war dragged on, the lies were exposed, and the body counts were filed. Today's university students, whom one would expect to be in the vanguard of the anti-war movement, are staying away from public demonstrations in droves. If the draft were to be reinstated, I suspect that would change.

Check out their campaign contriubutors/ . If the oil and gas lobby contribute,don't believe a word they Say. We need a green revolution similiar to Europes. Not only will in encourage energy independence, but foster economic growth. The program I support for a Green revolution.
$$$

World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, advocating a plan with Mikhail Gorbachev for a Global Green Deal that would enable the introduction of $50 billion of new solar projects around the world. It will be a major initiative to use our country's leadership in sustainable energy production to provide jobs to Americans, to reduce energy use here at home, and to partner with developing nations to provide their people with inexpensive, local renewable-energy technologies.

This is at the heart of his proposed Works Green Administration (WGA) which would couple a new WPA program to the EPA and NASA in restoring America's infrastructure and providing sustainable energy at the same time. No longer will the Environmental Protection Agency be known as Every Polluter's Ally.

Dennis' eloquent, factual challenges to the nuclear industry's attempts to develop a waste site at Yucca Mountain in Utah are well-documented. Here is just a bit of his statement made on April 25, 2002:

"The transportation of this waste would require over 96,000 truck shipments over four decades. Almost every major east-west interstate highway and mainline railroad in the country would experience high-level waste shipments as waste is moved from reactors and other sites in 39 states.

The Department of Energy proposes to directly impact 44 states and many of the major metropolitan areas in the nation, at least 109 cities with populations exceeding 100,000. Highway shipments alone will impact at least 703 counties with a combined population of 123 million people. Nationally, 11 million people reside within one- half mile of a truck or rail route.

http://www.dennis4president.com/go/issues/a-sustainable-future/

here is the real deal. and also hope for a sustainable economy.

That's right. I'm old enough to remember the Vietnam debacle and the protests that grew and grew as the war dragged on, the lies were exposed, and the body counts were filed. Today's university students, whom one would expect to be in the vanguard of the anti-war movement, are staying away from public demonstrations in droves. If the draft were to be reinstated, I suspect that would change.

True. But OTOH, some movements created big changes that didn't directly benefit many participants. For example, white people wouldn't benefit from the civil rights movement in the early 1960s, but many of them went south as Freedom Riders and to organize voter registration drives. Some were beaten and killed, but the atrocities seemed to inspire more people to get involved.

I wonder if the modern media (especially internet) has made people so "sophisticated" that they think it's uncool to get involved, and so cynical that they think it's futile and pointless.

I wonder if the modern media (especially internet) has made people so "sophisticated" that they think it's uncool to get involved, and so cynical that they think it's futile and pointless.

I was thinking that it might be the over prescription of effective anti depressant drugs keeping people from becoming discontent. I remember people getting quite upset with Nixon for lying about going into Cambodia. Even patriotic soldiers thought it was wrong for him to lie about it. With all the attention about global warming and oil shortages you'd think people would give car free a try but for some reason people aren't uncomfortable with their own destructive actions.

if you want to wean America off middle eastern oil, then coal has to be front and center, no two ways about it. We need a power source that is reliable, and none of the current "renewable" technologies fit the bill.

Can we do more? Yes. There should be a full frontal push to develop renewable sources of power including solar, wind, wave, and yes, even hydroelectric dams. However, none of those will ever meet our need 100%, no matter how much we cut back. We need to embrace nuclear, coal, etc. and instead of turning up our noses, we should be putting them to the grindstone to make them cleaner and safer.


And Europe's "revolution" is anything but. They are spewing just as much carbon into the air than they were before, but are using carbon credits to buy their guilt away.

However, I doubt the government will do much of anything, other than timely quotes for news stories during election time. Anyone remember when bush promised us all hydrogen powered cars? Fact is, no matter what party is in power, it will be business as usual until either the alternative forms of power become cheaper, the current forms of power become vastly more expensive, or there's a massive grass roots effort in step with private industry to make the change.

.
And Europe's "revolution" is anything but. They are spewing just as much carbon into the air than they were before, but are using carbon credits to buy their guilt away.
.

You may be right about the technicalities of Europe's actual reductions of carbon emmissions. But, for now living in Europe, our electric bills are half what they were in the US. Nuclear plants are everywhere. Is that a positive force? / And windmills are to commonly found. Sweden supposedly will be oil independent before mid Century. Reports are solar and wind will high on the continents agenda for the next decade.

Huckabee is the real deal. You may or may not agree with him on any issue, but he is one of the rare politicians who is genuine. Not a flip flopper, not a "say whatever will get me elected" guy. Just a legitimate person. Interestingly, I am sure he would be hugely in favor of cycling. He was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes a few years ago and decided to completely overhaul his lifestyle. He began running and lost over 100 pounds and now runs marathons.


Maybe, but he's socially right-wing, i.e. a ******bag.