Planning Energy Priorites for the Future

There's an interesting diary over on DailyKos right now -- it caught my interest, at least. It's Confused priorities: the scramble to exploit the Arctic sea bed by JohnnyRook.

Here's two of the comments -- one by NoBigGovernment, and my response. Both are, IMO, points worth keeping in mind while reading thru:

Unfortunately

Why are our leaders and the leaders of these other nations wasting time and money on seeing who can get access to the most underwater fossil fuels instead of investing in the renewable energy that might make it possible to keep New York, St. Petersburg, Vancouver, Copenhagen etc. above the waterline?

because they have to at this point. I think all reasonable nations are in fact investing in renewables, but in the meantime we need fuel to continue to make the world go round so to speak.

You just can't flip a switch and move from fossil fuels. Granted we could, and should, move faster but it's difficult to fault people for being somewhat prudent.

by NoBigGovernment on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 03:02:54 PM EST


_______________


"Prudent is as prudent does" so to speak...

...the BushCheney (CheneyBush?) Administration and Big Oil Republicans have done everything they can to force continued dependence on fossil fuels, when they should have been more prudent with the nation's resources and forward-thinking.

Instead, they essentially created a reality that is forcing us into greater, prolonged dependency but without any additional oversight, conservation, intelligent distribution or development of alternatives.

You are very correct that we need to be prudent with regard to a potentially untapped resource (vs. the relatively imprudent push by some to open the Arctic Refuge, which is a piddling amount in exchange for the potential damage/cost/impact).

However, we should eye any movement by BushCheney as an initial foray into yet another attempt to overfeed, gorge and run rampant instead of developing a sound policy for the securing, developing, use and distribution of energy and fuel sources.  

We must extricate BushCheney and their primary cheerleaders/benefactors from the process first, then put proper foundational structures into effect (rules, regs, laws and plans)...

Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
  Downy wings, but wroth they beat;
Tempest even in reason's seat.

by GreyHawk on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 03:28:43 PM EST

I do believe a genuine plan is needed to ensure that our economy and nation can adequately operate while slowly weaning itself off of oil. I do not, however, believe that the Republicans, Big Oil, the Bush Administration or anyone currently embedded with any or all of the above should have anything to do with it.

There are also some major corporations and other political parties who need to either recommit to the nation's priorites -- which should include a proper degree of planning for current and future needs -- or be banned from participating in the work of the people.

What do you think?

0
No votes yet

Comments

I have read things which unfortunately I don't have specific links or references to, that say that large energy savings could come simply by mandated much higher fuel efficiences. Just the opposite has occurred with the new energy bill which is being used to try to bludgeon California into reducing its standards.

Secondly switching to Diesel fuel. So it seems to me that it certainly is a dirty game right now. No big surprise there!

I downloaded a replay of Bob Zubrin's thesis on C-span book channel a few days ago. He is advocating methane and ethanol be produced from vegetable crops. While it is true that things like moss or algae can also be converted to biofuels, right now it seems like there is a major move to benefit us corporate farming by subsidizing them to switch out of food production and into producing grains as a feedstock for ethanol. Food prices are rapidly escalating as a consequence--not only effecting the bread we eat, but animal feed.

carol

will likely also lead to a decreased food supply and increased starvation, not to mention the huge amounts of water -- already becoming scarce -- that would be required for such large crop yields.

mother nature bats last. We are running out of oil ... and more importantly, we are running out of water. To use precious water to force more gas/oil out of the earth is a desperate measure and one we will ultimately pay a high price for (not us, but future generations and the price will have nothing to do with currency).

We should be paying $6.00/gallon for gas (or more) and work toward a "renewable" energy, not just a petroleum replacement. Bio fuels will wear out farming land, take product from the world's food supply and still not provide a sustainable solution. There is a hard truth that needs to be faced and most of us just aren't willing to face it.

Most Americans are not going to voluntarily adjust their habits, so need to be "forced" to modify their energy consumption.

-----
ePMedia ... get the scoop with us!
If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little. ~ George Carlin