[Merris]

My question is this: Why do conservatives take such a pessimistic approach when it comes to developing clean renewable energy? The problem I have with conservatives is that they claim patriotism but the things they promote makes me think don't have faith that we can figure this problem out. I feel optimistic that we can achieve anything when we put our minds to it because America is a great country, while it seems conservatives want to continue down the same old path that obviously isn't working.

No tirades or negatives about liberals, I want positives about conservatives. Giving a short answer that drilling is the better is not acceptable to me and will not be considered a well thought out answer.

[NeedKarma]

I think it's more a case of big business having a stranglehold on the government. Big oil fills up some pockets on Capitol Hill to further their interests. Conservatives have just taken it a notch higher.

[excon]

Hello Merris:

You can suggest what we write... But, we're going to ignore you, and write what we want anyway.

Conservatives think doing anything green will cause major dislocations in our economy. Rather than being entrepreneurial about it (which is what you'd THINK they'd be), they want to leave things be. Of course, they have a huge stake in the status quo - the oil and automobile industry.

They're afraid of "change". That's what conservative means, after all - to conserve what we've got - don't rock the boat.

excon

[tomder55]

I have responded to this so many times. I got to figure out how to do FAQs if there is such a feature here .

Here was my last response to a similar question(see response #8) :



https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...ts-257731.html

I will highlight what I think answers your question :

If we added domestic oil to the market then it would have an instant impact on the trade deficit as petro-dollars would come into the country instead of leaving the country .This would have the effect of strengthening the dollar... Which in itself would help on the prices of all goods and services in the US.

Drilling and increased refining would add jobs ......high paying jobs......"jobs Americans will do " . So I do not understand the Democrat resistance . To me it is a no brainer . It will buy us time to transition to a time when their panacea of a petro-carbon fossil fuel free energy source is viable (if ever ).

Seemingly every country that has any supply at all is exploiting it. We buy oil from sand imported from Canada. Canada and Mexico are 2 of our 3 largest suppliers. Why shouldn't we exploit our own resources ?

Drilling domestic oil would only make us energy independent if it is part of a comprehensive approach that includes oil, natual gas ,coal ,nuclear.. as well as investing in future technologies. ( although I would reconsider this idiocy of turning food into fuel) We cannot acheive energy independence by drilling alone. But drilling and refining in tandem with conservation;increased efficiency in autotechnology ,nuclear power ;clean coal ;natural gas ;certain sensible biofuels (converting corn into fuel not being one of them) and development of the renewable future energies is the path we should take.

Even the threat of drllling has had to a small degree ,an impact on the prices because commodities investors are betting on future supplies. To me it is a no-brainer to increase domestic production , in concert with increasing refining capacity .

[Galveston1]

Solar and wind are not able for the foreseeable future to produce enough power to replace that now generated by fossil fuels.

Of at least as much interest is the efforts of back-yard engineers who are working on separating hydrogen from water. Already, it is possible to boost gas mileage by adding HHO into the IC engine.

[inthebox]

Oil works its proven, its estalished. Increase supply, though that may not be immediate.

Same thing for coal, for nuclear, for hydroelectric. - proven baseline energy sources.

There is no infrastructure to carry energy generated from windmills in the plains or solar panels in the desert to the rest of the country. At this time, these can not be relied upon to provide base energy [ windless days, cloudy days etc.. ]

Just like investing though, the best bet would be to diversify and develop ALL these sources. ;)

As well as investing in battery / storage technology or harnessing electricity from lightning etc...

[Merris]

Oil works its proven, its estalished. Increase supply, though that may not be immediate.

Same thing for coal, for nuclear, for hydroelectric. - proven baseline energy sources.

There is no infrastructure to carry energy generated from windmills in the plains or solar panels in the desert to the rest of the country. At this time, these can not be relied upon to provide base energy [ windless days, cloudy days etc..]

Just like investing though, the best bet would be to diversify and develop ALL these sources. ;)

as well as investing in battery / storage technology or harnessing electricity from lightning etc...

I can agree with diversifying and that of course going with the same ol' same ol' is easiest. What really reaaaaallly irritates me though is that a lot of people complaining about the gas prices are the people who are still driving the BIG vehicles. My neighbors have a 16 passenger van with a "Drill here Drill now" sticker slapped on the back and you know what? Having five children was their own choice. Does it warrant opening a national forest to drilling? No.

It's so odd to hear people complain when we are still paying half of what a lot of other countries pay per gallon. You know what patriotism is? Do more to conserve energy. I know people who commute 40 miles to work just because they "like" the people they work with. One of my friends turned down a job close to her just because she didn't feel like changing, so she continues to drive to the neighboring city. If people are still not making lifestyle changes because it's inconvenient, I don't think the gas prices are the issue. Do I want the government to rush out and save me when I know that I myself could do more personally to save on gas? No. In America we build where we want and do what we want and now we have sprawled our concrete all over this beautiful country. We try to save the last stretch of unspoiled wilderness and can't even manage to do that. When it comes down to it, most of the people complaining could do more on a personal level... but just aren't.

[Galveston1]

If all this is being directed against MCCain/Palin, I could have sworn that I heard
McCain say we need to use wind, solar, natural gas and more drilling. What did I miss here?

PS. Conservatives are pessimistic? Who is it that said, "we can't win, lets quit", "more drilling won't help" "It'll be 10 years before we get any benefit from more drilling" (I question that time span). Who says "we can't build more refineries", and HORRORS!! "We can't build more nuclear power plants"?

The Dems are the party not of change, but of "can't".

[Merris]

If all this is being directed against MCCain/Palin, I could have sworn that I heard
McCain say we need to use wind, solar, natural gas and more drilling. What did I miss here?

PS. Conservatives are pessimistic? Who is it that said, "we can't win, lets quit", "more drilling won't help" "It'll be 10 years before we get any benefit from more drilling" (I question that time span). Who says "we can't build more refineries", and HORRORS!!! "We can't build more nuclear power plants"?

The Dems are the party not of change, but of "can't".

First, I have to say that I only speak for myself, here, not for democrats even though I vote that way for a host of other issues-- just the notion that you can only be two ways in this country seems absolutely absurd to me. There are so many shades of gray here that it isn't fair to speak for 50% of the country. You know?

As for your remarks...

I like how you conveniently ordered your energy list: Wind, Solar, natural gas and oh yes more drilling. Ha! I watched the republican convention-- There were crazy people in the audience shaking Drill baby Drill signs. And then they started chanting Drill Drill Drill like some sort of strange cultist energy camp. I don't know about you but these people are freaking me out.

Nuclear power? Do you know anything about three mile island? How about Chernobyl? Do you want someone putting the radioactive waste in your back yard? Talk to me about it when you do. Oh yeah, but it won't be in your back yard it'll be in some impoverished person's backyard where you'll never have to think about it or know about it.. sort of like those giant landfills.

I think the real difference between people for drilling and myself and again I am speaking for myself only, not for democrats--is that while most of the people at the republican convention are still having a torrid love affair with the automobile, the passion in that relationship died out for me a long time ago. I would personally like to see a cultural shift away from automobiles. They are a blight on the landscape and are at the bottom of so many social problems from pollution to the biggest killer of wildlife and human teen-agers, to the ever-expanding American behind. Their parking lots leech up miles and miles of land. They invoke rage like no other between strangers (but now we can add politics to that list, probably) More time is wasted in automobiles commuting as people keep buying cheap land out in the country to build their dream house and then driving 40 miles to work. Sprawl follows their interstates and now when the baby boomers hit that 80 year mark that will add a whole new dynamic to road rage we've probably never seen before. There has been talk of raising the driving age to 18 which means teen-agers will be stuck without transportation unless we give them other options. We could easily start to make cultural shifts that would make sharing the roads with bikes, pedestrians, scooters, atv's, smart cars, golf carts or whatever you want, safer.

I am in No Way saying that we can ever get completely away from the car and there will always be a need for them, but can we significantly reduce their numbers or make it easier for people to live without them? Yes we can.

I'm tired of people having absolutely no vision when it comes to a safer, cleaner U.S. with less cars. There are plenty of financial incentives that could be created to reward people who opt to open businesses or live nearer the city centers that would make mass transit more feasible.

Now let's see who says "We Can't"

[inthebox]

Sex, drugs and Chevron - how oil giant is tied to oil royalties scandal

See how looking to the government is not such a bright idea.

The solutions to the future energy lies within the people, not government.

Here is a recent example,


Remember how Hollywood and the media were demonizing GW Bush for not further federally funding embryonic stem cell research? Well..

The private sector continued and have made advances in iPPSC,

Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells Generated from Patients with ALS Can Be Differentiated into Motor Neurons -- Dimos et al. 321 (5893): 1218 -- Science

And what exactly has ESC produced?



Look at cars:
Increases in efficiency as well as power [ turbos, superchargers, 4 valves per cylinder, better tires, better aerodynamics, 5-6-7 speed even cv transmissions, ] all these came by market demand, not by government mandate.


If wind , solar, biofuels are truly the answer, why does the government have to fund it? Or give oil companies tax breaks and subsidies for that matter?

[Galveston1]

[QUOTE=Merris]
As for your remarks...


Nuclear power? Do you know anything about three mile island? How about Chernobyl? Do you want someone putting the radioactive waste in your back yard? Talk to me about it when you do. Oh yeah, but it won't be in your back yard it'll be in some impoverished person's backyard where you'll never have to think about it or know about it.. sort of like those giant landfills.
QUOTE]

You have some misconceptions about nuclear power plants. How many people were injured in the Three Mile Island incident? How much lasting radiation is there? None is the correct answer. Our power plants are not designed like the ones in Russia, they will not melt down. Most of the radioactive waste that has to be dealt with is in the form of low level radiation water. The water is used to make blocks of concrete that are easily stored in a secure manner. I know this because my daughter worked for some time for South Texas Nuclear plant. The safety record for nuclear plants is very good. If someone caught a cold because of one, the environmentalists would make a big issue of it.

Your vision of people living within biking distance of work will never happen. Relocation of jobs or people would be such a huge undertaking that it would be impossible. Think about it. We are told we can't even deal with a few million illegal immigrants.

And concerning those big landfills, just how much toxic waste will be created when we start having to dispose of millions of those hybrid batteries?

[tomder55]

Clearly from this and the other posting Merris is into socialized central planning and control society and economy.. No doubt we would be compelled to conform to the life-style options they chose for us because it is in their view better for the planet. No doubt population control is also part of the matrix. Merris in the other posting bemoaned the individual sacrifice for the common good ,or dare I say ;the collective. Consumer choices and demand are to be regulated and controlled .You can't live how or where you wish .

This is not a new thought of course .Economist Robert Heilbroner wrote in the 'New Yorker ' in 1990 that the way to revive central planning socialism was through the environmental movement . I think that gave rise to the Goracle (who has profitted very nicely preaching against a life style he is very content to lead himself).

We don't need central planning . The market recognizes a need and creates a solution on it's own very well.

[Merris]

Clearly from this and the other posting Merris is into socialized central planning and control society and economy.. No doubt we would be compelled to conform to the life-style options they chose for us because it is in their view better for the planet. No doubt population control is also part of the matrix. Merris in the other posting bemoaned the individual sacrifice for the common good ,or dare I say ;the collective. Consumer choices and demand are to be regulated and controlled .You can't live how or where you wish .

This is not a new thought of course .Economist Robert Heilbroner wrote in the 'New Yorker ' in 1990 that the way to revive central planning socialism was through the environmental movement . I think that gave rise to the Goracle (who has profitted very nicely preaching against a life style he is very content to lead himself).

We don't need central planning . The market recognizes a need and creates a solution on it's own very well.

Wow, so I guess offering people a tax credit for driving a hybrid car (which the government has already done) is socialized central planning? What about environmental regulations? If people are buying from factories that are polluting why should anyone tell them to stop doing it? That's china's policy, after all, and THEY are the communists, let me remind you... communists with serious respiratory problems, but still.

I guess downtown revitalization projects and tax breaks they've given people to buy houses condemned by the government in run-down parts of the inner-city is a socialist plot as well. Paranoid, much? The changes I'm talking about are already fermenting. They will be happening whether you want them to or not. All I'm talking about is the time frame for doing so. I'd like it to move more quickly so the oil crisis has less impact on our economy.

Thanks for trying to read my mind and talk for me, but don't bother because you obviously don't have the ability. Encouraging mass transit is suddenly linked to population control? Where did you pull that piece of bologna from? The irony is that mass transit would allow for greater population growth by creating more spaces for humans to inhabit.

As for the "collective," what exactly do you call fighting a war or paying taxes or driving on the right side of the road for that matter? Why the hell didn't we just let the market tell us which side of the road to drive on? People who like these stores can drive on this side, people who like those store on the other.

If we pay people to fight a war, why is offering them financial incentives to conserve energy during a crisis considered socialism especially when most of the money they are paying is going to Saudi Arabia, the third largest source of oil for us and the country where all the 9/11 hijackers are from?

For that matter, do you think the movement encouraging people to "Buy American" is an act of collective socialism? Wouldn't the market determine if American products were indeed the best ones to buy?

As Sailor Ripley says... "Peanut, the inner workings of your mind are God's own private mystery..."

[inthebox]

Excellent point Tom


The connection between green / enviromentalists and socialism.

The socialistic / liberal solution to problems involve government intervention and control.
-has government corn/ethanol intervention led to lower gas prices? No, it has led to shortages of corn and higher food prices, especially for underdeveloped countries.
- has government café mandates caused a decrease in SUV and P/U purchases? NO - the market / cost of gas has.

Will taxpayor funded mass transit be useful to those who have to make a stop at the bank, daycare, work, a friends house ? No.

And speaking of China and India, how is green control, via the government manipulating tax incentives / disincentives, of citizens in the USA going to help GLOBAL warming?

Look at the USSR - they tried to "plan" / centralized their economy - they failed.

Look at China - they grew economically when opening up their economy from total gov control.


I am all for conservation and being environmentally friendly - but that is an individual choice, not for some holier htan thou enviroradical castigating me for the choice of what I drive, the kind of light bulb I use, where I live, how many children I have etc...

[Merris]

You have some misconceptions about nuclear power plants. How many people were injured in the Three Mile Island incident? How much lasting radiation is there? None is the correct answer. Our power plants are not designed like the ones in Russia, they will not melt down. Most of the radioactive waste that has to be dealt with is in the form of low level radiation water. The water is used to make blocks of concrete that are easily stored in a secure manner. I know this because my daughter worked for some time for South Texas Nuclear plant. The safety record for nuclear plants is very good. If someone caught a cold because of one, the environmentalists would make a big issue of it.

I do agree with you that nuclear plants are safer than they were, and we have learned a lot in the last 30 years. That's interesting how the waste is formed into blocks --I've always wondered what it actually looked like. I think what bothers me a bit about nuclear power is that it requires Uranium which severely impacted the Navajo Tribe when it was mined over three decades on their reservation. It's not only extremely dangerous to mine and toxic, but also finite, like fossil fuels. Also, something bothers me about creating nuclear stations that have to be manned by experts at all times. In the event of extreme loss of human life, i.e. flu epidemic, or impact of some sort, if left unattended, nuclear reactors will begin overheating and if they do it would mean large patches of uninhabitable land for the foreseeable future. It just seems prudent to at least explore other options first.

I have to be honest, you stumped me on what illegal immigrants have to do with commuting to work. :) Obviously some people have to have a car. I'm more or less promoting more sustainable transportation and more options not extremism.

And you did say "We can't" after all... ;)

[Galveston1]

You can relax about our nuclear plants. The design is completely different from the Russian, which could also be used for making weapons grade uranium, from what I understand. Ours use individual rods, so there is no danger of the mass becoming critical. I think we may be close to being able to use fusion, rather than fission, and if/when we do, fuel will not be a problem since fusion produces fuel rather than using it. Or that's my understanding of it, anyway.

You didn't comment on the hybrid batteries. These cars are NOT green. The mining and manufacture of the batteries is a really polluting process, and so will the disposal of them be also. They are dangerous if immersed in water, and in a collision, rescurers could be electrocuted if they are not careful.

Electric cars have the above problems, are limited in range, and the electricity still has to be generated somewhere.

Oh, yeah, my comment about the illegals was in connection with the idea of moving things around to get people close to employment. What you envision may happen somewhere in the future due to free market development, but not likely in our lifetimes. For one thing, people do not keep the same jobs for a lifetime, and that requires relocation. Mass transit works for some people in some places, but it sure won't work outside the big metropolitan areas. It won't work in some of those big cities, either. Try to use mass transit in Houston, Texas, for example. If you do not work in a few square blocks downtown, forget it! By the time you do all the transferring, you won't have time for anything else. I know. I lived and worked there.

[tomder55]

Encouraging mass transit is suddenly linked to population control? Where did you pull that piece of bologna from? The irony is that mass transit would allow for greater population growth by creating more spaces for humans to inhabit.

Gal did a good job expaining this comment .

What you envision may happen somewhere in the future due to free market development, but not likely in our lifetimes. For one thing, people do not keep the same jobs for a lifetime, and that requires relocation. Mass transit works for some people in some places, but it sure won't work outside the big metropolitan areas. It won't work in some of those big cities, either. Try to use mass transit in Houston, Texas, for example. If you do not work in a few square blocks downtown, forget it! By the time you do all the transferring, you won't have time for anything else. I know. I lived and worked there.

Yes and if population control is not in effect then the population growth overwhelms the carefully planned infrastructure.That is why I referred to it in my comment. I recently spent some time in San Diego .It took me close to an hour to navigate what would've been a 15-20 minute car ride... and that was with carefully planning transfers.

If I lived in NYC I would not own a car .There are plenty of public transportation options and the costs of owning and garaging a car is somewhat prohibitive.That is of course unless you live in the less expensive housing in the outer boroughs .Then public transportation is a headache and you have to give yourself plenty of time to navigate the system.Still the growth in mass transit has not reduced congestion on the city streets.Why ? Because luring the population into the inner city creats an unbelievable strain on the infrastructure and the city culture.

Living inside the inner city is becoming more popular to the upper middle class and the snobbish liberal elites ;so gentrification is taking place.Skyrocketing rents, condominium conversions, new construction and conversions of buildings that were former single room occupancy hotels occurred. Much of Harlem's brownstones have been transformed during this period from low-cost renter housing to homeownership and high-cost apartments. The average apartment in these buildings now rents for more than $1,700. People from across the city described almost unprecedented pressure from landlords who push tenants out in order to capture higher rents.176,900 renters were displaced between 1989 and 2002.

I guess downtown revitalization projects and tax breaks they've given people to buy houses condemned by the government in run-down parts of the inner-city is a socialist plot as well.

Indeed it is and you forgot to mention the tyranical aspect of that when government invokes eminent domain to do a property grab for the purpose of handing it off to a developer.
[See Kelo v.City of New London
Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]

Encouraging people to conserve or for that matter to buy American is not mandates. Subsidies for ethanol use has horribly distorted the market on some very critical food supplies . Hybrids are over rated ;although there is a big mpg difference in high traffic areas ;when you drive on the highway there is no real difference between them and your typical 4 cyl. Engine.As Gal mentioned there is an environmental impact in the disposal of the batteries.

France is 80% energy independent because of their use of nuclear power. Their plant design is called "breeder reactor" .These reactors waste is recycled because the waste is actually more fuel for the reactor.The breeder reactor system produces virtually no nuclear waste . Everything eventually gets used. There is some residual material that could be considered waste, but its half-life is on the order of thirty to forty years. By contrast, the half-life for the stuff we produce as waste currenty is over 25,000 years.

It's hard to ignore the parallels to the recent ethanol boom, which was also fueled by mandates and subsidies, and which is now viewed almost universally as a disaster;and the windmill frenzy. Windmill construction is booming[by 45 percent last year alone] in no small part because of a 20% subsidy the government is giving to people like T Boone Pickins and mandates by 28 states for renewable energy, with wind power shouldering most of the load ,to get at least 20 percent of their supply from wind and other renewable sources between 2015 and 2025.

Texas currently leads the pack and it is there where we find the biggest problems associated with wind power.[2.9 percent of its electricity comes from wind] They build them where the wind blows the strongest ;in the western part of the State. The big cities are in the eastern part of the state. Therefore transmission infrastructure needs to be added to the cost of the use of wind power. Texas expects to max out its transmission lines by the end of the year. More wind power means new transmission lines, which will cost between $3 billion and $6.4 billion in Texas alone.

The same is true in NY . Windmill project are ongoing or in use in upstate areas .The biggest energy usage is down state in the NYC area. Nationally 12,000 to 19,000 miles of new high-power lines crisscrossing the country would be needed to bring wind power from the places where the wind blows to places where the population lives.

Now ;does that wind always blow at the same speed ? Are there days when the windmill sit unmoving ? The answer is yes. If we plan on getting 20 % of our grid from wind what happens when the windmills stop turning ?

Texas is now only 3% wind. But February, an unexpected calm cold front shut down state's wind farms. As power ran out and backup generation proved inadequate, large industrial and commercial users were compelled to shut down or radically reduce their consumption.Firing up back up generation is inefficient and much more "fossil fuel is used in those situations than when they are used regularly . Winds tend to blow stongest in the sping and fall when the demand is lowest.

Now that being said ;wind is a promising alternative as part of an overall comprehensive energy policy. The way to address our energy and environmental problems is not to champion any one solution .It's let the market find the most efficient way to cut emissions and reduce our dependence on oil.

[Merris]

You didn't comment on the hybrid batteries. These cars are NOT green. The mining and manufacture of the batteries is a really polluting process, and so will the disposal of them be also. They are dangerous if immersed in water, and in a collision, rescurers could be electrocuted if they are not careful.

This is not entirely true. While all batteries pose some environmental consequence, today most Hybrid car batteries are one of two types: nickel metal hydride, or lithium ion; both are regarded as more environmentally friendly than lead-based batteries (which constitute the bulk of car batteries today). "Jim Kliesch, author of the 'Green Book: The Environmental Guide to Cars and Trucks' told HybridCars.com, 'There are many types of batteries. Some are far more toxic than others. While batteries like lead acid or nickel cadmium are incredibly bad for the environment, the toxicity levels and environmental impact of nickel metal hydride batteries—the type currently used in hybrids—are much lower.'".

As for Electrocution and Hybrid cars... this is a MYTH. Even on a fire and rescue page, they say it just plain isn't true.

Hybrid Hazards Present New Challenges

Electric cars have the above problems, are limited in range, and the electricity still has to be generated somewhere.

I am not a proponent of the electric car. I want to get away from the use of coal power plants.

Mass transit works for some people in some places, but it sure won't work outside the big metropolitan areas. It won't work in some of those big cities, either.

I'm sorry but I'm not buying it. My state is an asphalt jungle. Kids can't walk anywhere by themselves because none of the neighborhoods have sidewalks. The absence of sidewalks is a HUGE complaint with parents here and I'm one of them. I have a grocery store only four blocks away and to walk there you have to push your stroller on the side of the road that's five lanes wide. It's absolutely ridiculous that the cars get ALL of the space and there is no safe place for bikers or pedestrians.

Furthermore, people here are more and more often voicing their discontent with commutes and they WANT a rail system-- even conservatives. Cities like Houston (which I've heard is the sprawl capital) can transform by creating buildings where there are now parking lots. Do you realize how much land is lost to parking lots?

You know, regardless of this conversation, things are moving in this direction anyway, even if not completely in our lifetime as you said. No solution is an easy one, but once people start using more forms of mass transit, the businesses move to where it's more convenient for the people. So these multiple trips to work, store and daycare become closer to one another even though they can be miles apart now. From your reactions to this I take it you are in opposition of walking anywhere? Take heart, walking is good for you and can even be downright enjoyable without cars. ;) If you ever get a chance in your life take a walk in Sienna, Italy. Right now businesses and housing developments sprawl along highways because they follow the path of the cars. If we start giving people ways to reduce the number of cars, businesses will follow the people. It's a natural progression.

[Merris]

Gal did a good job expaining this comment .


Why ? Because luring the population into the inner city creats an unbelievable strain on the infrastructure and the city culture.

Living inside the inner city is becoming more popular to the upper middle class and the snobbish liberal elites ;so gentrification is taking place.Skyrocketing rents, condominium conversions, new construction and conversions of buildings that were former single room occupancy hotels occurred. Much of Harlem’s brownstones have been transformed during this period from low-cost renter housing to homeownership and high-cost apartments. The average apartment in these buildings now rents for more than $1,700. People from across the city described almost unprecedented pressure from landlords who push tenants out in order to capture higher rents.176,900 renters were displaced between 1989 and 2002.

Sprawl, on the other hand, puts a stress on the entire global population. The sprawl in the U.S. is the greatest contributor to our high consumption of fuel and emissions. Which is better fine tuning a city or supporting the current model that is creating problems that spans the globe as more and more countries, China especially, seek to copy our unsustainable plan? If we come up with new technology in research and development it will only serve as a profit for us because we can turn around and sell the solutions to other nations.

As for the rising prices in urban areas, we can't as you've said over and over control the price the market demands. Issues of fair housing has to be addressed. A developer recently built a high rise in our city and the prices they want are beyond ridiculous. The developers, who are no doubt calling each other and agreeing on the set price are the problem here, not the idea itself. I was angry when I heard about the proposed prices of these condos. I know my family can't afford it, even though I would love to live downtown. But if the market works as you say it will, the prices should adjust, no?

Encouraging people to conserve or for that matter to buy American is not mandates.

Well glad to see we at least agree on one thing.

France is 80% energy independent because of their use of nuclear power. Their plant design is called "breeder reactor" .These reactors waste is recycled because the waste is actually more fuel for the reactor.The breeder reactor system produces virtually no nuclear waste . Everything eventually gets used. There is some residual material that could be considered waste, but its half-life is on the order of thirty to forty years. By contrast, the half-life for the stuff we produce as waste currenty is over 25,000 years.

You have never addressed my concerns about nuclear plants. There are many more concerns other than the waste itself. For one (and an odd coincidence) a nuclear power plant also takes about $4.5 billion to build for EACH PLANT and it takes a LOT more resources than a wind farm, and it takes about 10 - 12 years to construct. You know how long it takes to build a large wind farm? 12 - 18 months. You are complaining about the 4.5 billion to set up the lines for wind power, but what you are failing to mention is that we could spend the same amount of money for the nuclear power plant itself. THEN we have to pay for the uranium, which will only go up in cost as the demand goes up. THEN we will have to pay for new infrastructure ANYWAY because our electric grid is old and rickety and falling apart as it is -- not to even mention bridge collapse and sewer systems falling apart... So what you are proposing is a LOT more expensive in every single way. And once the wind farm is set up, guess what? The Wind is FREE. Also, contrary to only being available when the wind is blowing, wind power is often used in conjunction with hydroelectric power. It's a hybrid affair. When the wind blows, water accumulates in dammed reservoirs, and when there is no wind the valves are opened to produce hydro electric power. You seem to have a utopian view that we can have both. I'm not so sure that we can AFFORD both in our ailing post-Bush economy. This is the root of the battle.

As for ethanol.. it has indeed caused food inflation prices for the people. I'm personally not a fan of using food for fuel, especially when there are a lot of starving people in the world. The flip side to this, of course, is that suddenly a lot of farms have started making money when they were just about to crumble. The road goes both ways, and I'm not sure the real answer has presented itself. Food prices going up has been mainly attributed to severe weather. I know Australia's wheat crop was decimated this year... and there are lots of factors at play here, not just the ethanol debate. I can tell you, though, that speaking for myself, personally, my trips to the grocery store are what is severely hurting my wallet... much more than the gas I'm paying for.

Now that being said ;wind is a promising alternative as part of an overall comprehensive energy policy. The way to address our energy and environmental problems is not to champion any one solution .It’s let the market find the most efficient way to cut emissions and reduce our dependence on oil.

The question remains as to whether we can afford both. Also, the problem with putting the market up as some god-like entity that makes all our decisions for us is that now we have a global market and not everyone is playing by the same rules. So what do you do? China has political prisoners in forced labor camps pumping out all that cheap plastic crap we buy with almost religious zeal and then throw into a landfill a few days later. Should we make our prisoners work, too? Should we abolish child labor laws? You never answered as to whether you think we should abolish environmental regulations. See how the market is suddenly lopsided and isn't working so well? This is where the market is failing as an entity.

This question of communism and socialism is a very interesting debate to me. The funny thing is that we both have the same fears. I don't want the government controlling me anymore than you do. I don't want the government telling me whether I can have an abortion, I don't want the government spying on me like the communist govt. of China and or the secret police in East Germany before the Berlin wall came down. Ever watched the movie "The Lives of Others?" Did you support the patriot act??

Okay let's realllly get down to the issue of control here...

Just as I want the government out of my reproductive system, I also don't want a few very powerful corporations who are buying up everything dictating how I live or what I buy either. There was an interesting news story recently that stated conservatives are much more likely to shop at Wal-Mart than liberal people. You know why that is? Because we don't want the ONLY CHOICE to be Wal-mart. I haven't shopped at Wal-Mart in years and I avoid huge chain stores that have too much power. These companies move to small towns and decimate the local businesses and then before you know it, everyone is sporting those classy Wal-Mart duds-- or the uniform of the free market. This happened in my small midwestern hometown. You rightfully question government involvement yet support unbridled corporate consolidation? Hate to tell you, but the destination of these two trains is the same, my friend. The money floats to the top echelon and there it stays. It doesn't and has never trickled down. Maybe that is the spirit of capitalism, but to me it is the homogenization of society and the local flavor is lost to the conglomerate. So you have to be realistic and ask what's the difference?

Wal-Mart is only one example. Hollywood video also came.. built a new store along the highway (of course-- love that sprawl) and rented all their videos for a dollar until the locally owned video store within the city closed its doors. Then guess what they did? They raised their rentals for $2 more than the local store had previously been renting them.

The only answer currently is shopping with a conscience. I try to do this as much as I can from what products I buy, to where I buy them. I admit it's exhausting and sometimes I just feel defeated and like giving up. Fighting for a clean safe world and for a better environment is work... and most people have kids to worry about. I have a kid, too... but it's absolutely necessary to keep the power out of the hands of a few elite corporations. Your fear of socialism is misplaced and severely dates you, especially if you don't recognize the detrimental effect of the almighty market, which has reduced our holidays into a retail numbers game and hollowed art and human society to an unabashed platform for product placement.

[Merris]

Excellent point Tom


the connection between green / enviromentalists and socialism.

...

Look at the USSR - they tried to "plan" / centralized their economy - they failed.

Look at China - they grew economically when opening up their economy from total gov control.

You equate environmentalists with socialism yet your only example of a failed country is the USSR which was a communist country. Do you not know the difference? There are many countries including most of Europe and Canada with moderate socialized policies that are anything but failures. So is China a "success" because of its completely open/uncontolled market that leaves hundreds of infants dead from tainted formula and ships toys with lead paint around the world even after all other developed countries have banned them because they cause brain damage in children?