Discussion on:

Obama vs. Romney: Who has the best energy plan?

No matter what Obama or Romney do, it appears that energy supply and demand in North America are coming closer in balance. The maximum demand and minimum production in North America occurred in 2005. Ever since then demand has been going down (well before the recession) and supply has been going up as new drilling technologies are taking hold. Thus we have a trend that started in the Bush administration and continued through the Obama administration, despite two very different energy policies. See http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/crudeoilreserves/index.cfm#fnote1 , http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mcrfpus1&f=a , http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9010us2m.htm , and http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/17/us-usa-api-monthly-idUSBRE87G0UQ20120817 . If current trends continue in line with both parties' "all of the above" strategy, there is a possibility we could see overall North American energy supply and demand come into balance by 2020. However, this won't happen without the new mileage standards promoted by the Obama administration, and which are not supported by Romney. Romney's plan also assumes about 1 million barrels a day coming from biofuels, even though he is not a big proponent of them and they still require huge government subsidies.

Contrary to what Mr. Neider asserts, government subsidies for coal and natural gas electricity production amount to only 64 cents per MWH while solar is $765.64 per MWH and wind is $56.29 per MWH (see http://www.emailthis.clickability.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=viewThis&etMailToID=1201253705 , this link should get around the Wall Street Journal paywall for the next few days). The $4 billion per year federal subsidies the oil industry as a whole gets is derived mainly from the same capital depreciation tax laws that are available to any business. It's a tiny amount in an industry that contributes tax revenues of tens of billions a year. Solar, on the other hand, just creates black holes like Solyndra that swallow hundreds of millions without a trace (though it appears this loss will be available as tax credits to Solyndra's investors, some of whom are major Obama contributors, see http://www.emailthis.clickability.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=viewThis&etMailToID=2002391853 ).

As for carbon emissions, the actual truth is that today the US is already close to meeting the Kyoto standards (basically reducing CO2 emissions to 1990 levels). US energy related CO2 emissions (including transportation and electricity production) are the lowest since 1992 (see http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=7350 ). While warmer weather played a part, as well as lower gasoline demand due to higher prices (supply and demand again), most of it has come from moving away from coal electricity production to cheaper natural gas (again driven by supply and demand). A byproduct of this is lower CO2 emissions since natural gas produces much less CO2 per MWH than coal. Who knew fracking would be the single most effective means of reducing CO2 in the last 20 years?

why not end government subsidies for all energy and let the market sort it out?

why not end government interference and regulation (government spends less money)

the government could then use the money saved to invest in research, or humanitarian concerns.

Politicians and government derive most of their wealth and power through regulation and subsidies, which wealthy individuals and companies pay handsomely to influence. Once these "feedback loops" are in place, they are virtually impossible to eliminate.

For example, it's almost universally accepted today by both industry and environmentalists that our Ethanol policy is a disaster, resulting in billions of dollars wasted, massive market dislocations, environmental damage, and food shortages. (Even Al Gore admits it was a mistake and that he supported it only to buy votes) And yet, no matter who wins come November, we will still have the same policy of mandates and subsidies in place next year, and the year after, and after. Why? Because a portion of the subsidies are directly fed back to the politicians who have the power but not the will to put a stop to it.

In 100 years, all cars could be powered by solar, wind and high self-esteem, but we'll still be subsidizing and mandating Ethanol.

How much oil would be washing up on the shores of the Gulf of Mexico without government interference and regulation? Self regulation seldom works. Did you ever read "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair?

In ending government subsidies for all energy would you include the subsidy that fossil fuels get when they don't have to pay the cost of externalities such as increased asthma and heart disease, etc for people exposed to the byproducts of their use?

It's not nearly as simple as you make it out to be.

Government regulation is not the only solution to most problems. If BP had just let the oil spill go, they would have been sued out of existence under existing general tort laws. People would stop buying gas at their stations.

Even "The Jungle" or "Silent Spring" were countervailing forces. They each were written by an individual, but they changed whole industries.

Government needs to provide the general legal framework and the courts to settle disputes. But the more specific regulations get, the more government interferes with people and companies going about their productive business.

You're idealism is sweet but in the real world am I going to risk my meager assets trying to go against someone like BP? Especially difficult would be cases where it's not possible to assign liability directly to an individual entity such as the asthma or heart disease caused by the pollution from vehicles. Are you going to sue every driver? or all of the filling stations that enable them?

If the company officers and shareholders had a more direct link to the consequences of their failures (read criminal liability) they would probably be more responsible but corporations are set up to shield those people from personal liability. If corporations and business entities weren't allowed to externalize costs they'd be more responsible but that's pretty impossible to do. I'd rather have government act in my stead.

What the difference is between needed business regulation and over regulation.

Needed regulation is the FAA saying that all commercial airliners must be carpeted with fire resistant carpeting that meets certain pollution emissions standards when smoldering to limit choking smoke in the event of a fire.

Over regulation is the FAA under the Obama administration saying that replacement carpet must meet the same standards AND be made of all natural materials obtained from only sustainable sources.

Seeing that no such carpet existed, that new regulation effectively stopped the replacement of worn carpets on commercial planes until such a product was created.

Just end ALL Government interference and READ the CONSTITUTION?

The Constitution IS THE BASIS of the government, after all.

Without what you are calling "Government interference," (I call it doing what government is SUPPOSED to do), reading the Constitution would be absolutely useless.

(Have YOU read it?)

Evidently you have not. 95% of what the Feds are doing is actually the purvey of the individual states to decide and act upon.

Article 1 Section 8. Powers of Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

To borrow money on the credit of the United States.

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with Indian Tribes;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and navel Forces;

From the Preamble of The Constitution of the United States

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessing of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It clearly states the government is there to serve the people. That is why no corporations, groups or organizations should be allowed to be involved with elections or lobbying.

"why not end government subsidies for all energy and let the market sort it out?" Americans sometimes forget (or don't know) that the five major U.S. oil companies have to compete in the international marketplace against foreign oil companies that are heavily subsidised. And while President Obama restricted offshore drilling in tthe U.S., he subsidized it in Brazil, for a comany connected to one of his largest contributors..

Barack Obama promised that ,"under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket" and that "will cost money

Obama has not restricted offshore drilling. He just put a temporary moratorium on deep water drilling while they were sorting out the aftereffects of the BP Deepwater Horizon spill. Shallow water drilling was still allowed and now deep water permitting has resumed.

It's amusing how I get negative votes for a simple factual statement, I suppose because it doesn't fit the voters worldview. Prove me wrong!

the Brazil bs was debunked long ago

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/barackobama/a/obama_offshore_drilling_brazil.htm

So the U.S. Export-Import Bank loaned money to Petrobras, Brazil's national oil company, so it would buy American equipment.

If the US government made low-interest loans to an US oil company drilling in the US under similar circumstances, the outcry from greens complaining about US government oil industry subsidies would be deafening.

Are you kidding? You are not sure "if Romney plans to annex Canada and Mexico"??? How about addressing this administration's refusal to have the DOE consider safe, cheap, thorium nuclear energy? This would not only avoid the possibility of nuclear melt-downs, but also create the medical isotopes so sorely needed, and free us from the Chinese stranglehold on rare earth metals! Renewable energy sources are good additions to the pool of sources, but these have the disadvantage of either being made from FOOD (i.e., ethanol) or are intermittent (i.e., solar, wind). We need two articles like this. Yours, and "the rest of the story". Shame on you.

You are living in lala land, if you think ANY of this matter in current time. What is at issue in this election is simple: putting the brakes on a runaway car, or stepping on the accelerator as it runs for the cliff.

My main issue with nuclear power is that it uses massive amounts of fresh water. Plants that can use grey water are being worked on, but it still requires millions of gallons of water each day.

You are concerned by the fresh water use by nuclear power? How much power do I get for the water used? What about what consumption of water to produce biofuels. According to a study the Virginia Water Resources Research Center in liters per 1000KWh:
Ethanol - 32,400-375,900
Biodiesel - 180,900-969,000
Nuclear - 31,000-74,900

This is not a doomsday comment, but there is an unfortunate reality to consider here. Namely, that even if Pres. Obama *does* get re-elected, and is hopefully able to serve the whole of his second term, that still only brings us 4 years into what is a roughly 24 year energy plan, in terms of his goals for efficiency. 24 years folks, that's a bare minimum of *THREE* presidents after this one, or if everyone serves their full four years, as many as SIX. Anyone of of these people could up and derail or out right kill this much needed action. And given the highly divisive state of our country's mind set right now, the likelihood of this getting the axe before it can bear fruit is very, very likely.

I'm not saying don't vote, and I'm not saying it's hopeless, and I'm not supporting one party over another. What I AM saying is that, if the environment is important to you, make sure your elected officials, whatever their party affiliation, know that, and have their facts straight. There are tons of bits of misinformation and half truths out there, even a few brilliantly crafted lies, and unfortunately, a great deal of false hope about how little we need to change our behaviors as a species to prevent this looming disaster. We cannot wait to tighten our belts on energy usage, and to stop using the more polluting fuel sources, until all the other countries do. Polluting the earth is not a right, or a privilege, it's a shame and it ought to be a crime. We need to step up and lead by example, rather than complaining that other people in other countries still get to do what we shouldn't want to do anyway.

If you feel similarly, and you want to see things get done to protect the planet, make sure sure that ALL your candidates on ALL levels of your government know that, because this has got to happen on all levels for the foreseeable future. We can't pin our hopes on one guy, who's power is actually pretty limited, who has some good ideas, and assume he'll make the problem go away. The problem doesn't just "go away." It's going to take consistent effort by a series of people who understand what's going on and are willing to make the right choice for the environment, regardless of how unpopular it may be in the view of big business and other special interests. Because at the end of the day, whether they realize it or not, those groups still live here too, and they still need a habitable planet, and whether they get it or not, letting them run amock with outdated energy policies is a slow suicide for all of us.

After all, we've been subsidizing Ethanol for 3 decades now, or 6 more years than Obama's supposed 24-year plan.

Some bad ideas just never go away.

Fine, you don't like ethanol or the fact that our government subsidizes it. Thing is, that has absolutely nothing to do with my point at all. You missed it entirely. My point is that caring for and healing the environment is a LONG TERM GOAL that is EVERYONE'S responsibility. Most of us aren't in a position to make the decisions that will guide the country in this respect, but we DO choose those decision makers. And we need them to be conscientious about it.

...which is that as long as the government takes the role of choosing winners and losers based almost entirely upon pop science and who's buddies and bundles with whom, there will be no "healing the environment".

It's certainly true that "Most of us aren't in a position to make the decisions that will guide the country in this respect", but it's also true that the ones we've been choosing to do so aren't either. The current state of the President's alternative energy agenda is painful enough proof of that.

All we can do is promote a clean culture, and hope that people start adopting it. Let's say that I feel like 6Wolves: I vote for whoever has the environmental priority (or that's what the slimy politician told us). That's how you end up with crooks in office that will say anything to get elected by people that believe anything that a "pro-green" politician tells them. As long as the government is involved, the correct way of doing the task at hand will never happen. Less government=more things happening the way that they're actually supposed to happen. Slash and burn the government wherever possible, and make a clean planet (and whatever else the majority supports) "cool."

No long term effort is possible without a consensus that the effort is necessary. That consensus isn't possible due to the efforts of the fossil fuel industry & it's allies in other corporations. It's disinformation campaign has succeeded in confusing the public - it never needed to win, only force a draw that translates to inaction. It's lobbying efforts have won over the GOP & some Dems as well. Beyond the USA, China is under enormous pressure to improve living standards, India is under similar pressure but with a rapidly growing population as well, and Brazil & Russia owe their prosperity to fossil fuels.

@theotherwill,

You miss the most important part. The 'Alternative Solutions' are just not cost competitive with what we are currently using. Cost is in the final analysis what will really win.

Read the Article. While obviously written by an Obama Booster, it still recognizes that 'renewables' are still more than an order of magnitude more expensive than the old carbon ones. Until this is no longer true, the changes you want just won't happen.

One possibility is to build a bunch of nuclear reactors, and use the power from then to concentrate carbon dioxide from the air, and then add water and energy, and make methanol. The Methanol can then be modified into a suitable fuel source.

This has the advantage of at least working, and being scalable. We also have the advantage with this of already knowing the environmental impacts.

Solar Electric and Wind energy production also have major environmental impacts. Most people just don't know what they are yet.

But, whatever we choose, burning food as the US and Europe currently do is not a good solution. Particularly when independent audits have for many years found that they production of these 'Biofuels' use more fossil fuels than the fuels they replace.

You claim Chris is an obvious Obama supporter. What is your basis? The fact that as in all of his articles he tries to use logic to get to his conclusion?
Interesting...

Oxygen is even more essential to OUR survival but I guarantee you wouldn't like the effects if we increased it by 40% in our atmosphere like we have CO2.

It is well recognized that increases in CO2 are a feedback of warming. That is true but it in no way says that increasing CO2 levels through other means can't cause warming. It's not a binary either/or situation.

Using your numbers atmospheric CO2 is increasing by a bit less than 5 ppmv/year however if you look at total human caused emissions of CO2 it would be enough to raise levels by around 10 ppmv/year so a bit more than half of CO2 emissions are being absorbed by other sinks in the carbon cycle. We are increasing the total carbon in the active carbon cycle which raises the level everywhere.

In your "simple maths" calculation you totally ignore the sink side of the carbon cycle. For about the last 10,000 years CO2 levels in the atmosphere hovered around 280 ppmv varying up and down by around 10 ppmv on a yearly cycle and only when humans started significant combustion of fossil fuels (and to a lesser extent certain land use changes such as deforestation) did the level in the atmosphere start increasing.

Hi riverat, I see you are still plugging away at your lost cause. Nice to have you back though - quite like old times!

I can always rely on you for a weird side-stepping kind of argument. This time you have excelled yourself. You say:

"Oxygen is even more essential to OUR survival but I guarantee you wouldn't like the effects if we increased it by 40% in our atmosphere like we have CO2."

Who said we would like it? Apart from anything else the forests would all burn down. But you know (and I suspect you are hoping your readers mostly won't know) why this is such a terribly weak argument. Some facts: the first four constituents of the atmosphere are:

NITROGEN 780,840ppm (78%)
OXYGEN 209,460ppm (21%)
ARGON 9,340ppm (0.9%)
CO2 394ppm (0.04%)

Whilst increasing the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere by 40% would clearly have a CATASTROPHIC effect, increasing the amount of CO2 in the same ratio would not even be noticeable because it is a trace gas (except that plants would grow faster, agriculture would have greater yields, and all sorts of other consequent good things would happen).

If you still are adhering to the strange notion that another 40% increase in CO2 from the 1750 pre-industrial baseline figure of 277ppm is going to produce a disaster, even though the last one from 1750 to 2011 generated diddly squat warming (around 1degC over 261 years) then just say so and we can all smile indulgently. But please don't try to pull off intellectually shallow comparisons like the one you just made.
.

I'll admit I was a bit hyperbolic about the oxygen content thing but your assumption that the trace amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere "would not even be noticeable" is not very supportable either. Do you have anything to back you up other than it just seems like such a minute amount? After all it only takes a trace amount of cyanide in the air to kill you. 270 ppm of cyanide gas in the air will kill you within minutes.

This simply opens up the old "is man-made CO2 really having any effect on the climate?" debate. Did I not make the point that the temperature since 1750 (presumed approx. start of the industrial revolution) has only increased by around 1degC over 261 years? Look at the DATA. When the world mean temperature departs alarmingly from its slow long term climb (0.4degC per century) - well that will be the time to re-visit the radiative transfer HYPOTHESIS which, currently, remains dead in the water. In the meanwhile we should let the FACTS speak for themselves and stop spending taxpayers' money on expensive scams and boondoggles.

... a comment that ignores years of scientific research. For the climate whether CO2 is "man-made" or not is beside the point. The CO2 in our atmosphere has a significant effect on climate through it's effect on temperature and changes in the level are bound to affect climate. It's built into the physics of the situation.

...by looking at the carbon isotope ratios, which are different from carbon released from geologically sequestered coal beds, oil fields, etc. So while the physics of radiative transfer and the greenhouse effect does not change depending on the source of the atmospheric carbon, the source of that carbon is traceable through a combination of pretty good record keeping and carbon isotope ratios. Both indicate that the amounts released through human activity are enough to trigger the climate changes we are experiencing and that the data is showing us.

klassman6, I wasn't trying to imply the added CO2 wasn't coming from human sources and that it wasn't a problem, just that the total CO2 is what's important. I've known about the c12/c13 isotope ratio issue for at least 5 years.

I lost track of the decimals, instead of ten billion, is should be 100 million. Sorry, but it does not change my conclusions.

Scientific consensus does not support what CSouthard contends is common sense. What used to be common sense is not that common anymore, but science sometimes has to fly in the face of common sense. That CO2 at a few hundred ppm in the atmosphere can in fact substantially alter the climate is well documented physics, because of its very high absorbance of certain wavelengths. That the complex feedback of atmospheric composition and temperature is governed by numerous factors is also well accepted. As someone who works intimately with the petroleum industry, and has been cautious about adopting a scientific consensus view from a field apart from my own, I also consider it fairly clear from data I first saw in Alaska in the 1980s that the current warming, evident in wellbore temperature profiles in the Arctic, does in fact coincide well with the increasing output of old carbon from human activity. We currently return that carbon to the atmosphere at one billion times the rate at which it was deposited over tens to hundreds of millions of years. As a geologist I have seen the calculations, and they are both rational and scientific. It is not unreasonable to conclude that the increase of about 100 ppm in atmospheric CO2 cannot reasonably be achieved under current conditions without both anthropogenic and natural forcings. An increase of 5 ppm per year, as reported by Mr. Southard is a remarkably large increase, given that every decade it increases the CO2 content by 15-20%. Brief rapid increases have occurred in geologic time, under unusual circumstances, and they provide useful models for what is happening now due to anthropogenic inputs of old carbon. Unfortunately, Mr. Southard's view is not becoming the main stream, but the rear guard. Increasingly, the arguments of this scientific opposition take on the form of creationist arguments against evolution - citing of long refuted arguments, concentration on uncertainty, ad hominem attacks on participants.
I am not a fan of the Obama administration actions on oil and gas, as they run counter to the high rhetoric of the policy, and support cutting modest but useful tax benefits to one industry, while supporting much larger (in cost per unit energy delivered - as noted by John McGrew) for another, but am not in love with the Republican pronouncements of support for all, but avoidance of legitimate government support for research and development in both fossil and renewable fuel.
Jeremy Boak, Director
Center for Oil Shale Technology and Research
Colorado School of Mines
Viewpoints expressed are mine, not positions of the Colorado School of Mines.

These debates always seem to center around CO2. But, CO2 is just not a very good greenhouse gas.

A much better greenhouse gas is water vapor. Methane is also up there, each at well over 10 X the warming effectiveness of CO2.

Oh, and good old chlorofluorocarbon, (Freon) is way up there, with well over a thousand times the effectiveness of CO2 for warming.

Even solar variability has more impact than CO2.

Oh, and SO2 is also more powerful than CO2, especially when water vapor is present.

It's really a quite complex subject.

Trouble with your theoretical argument is that it just doesn't stack up against the facts. CO2 is the only relevant gas (and that is only if you believe in radiative transfer theory which many do not - it is highly controversial) because it is the only gas that is being added to the atmosphere at a significant rate.

...but it's politically valuable because it's the one that industrialization is allegedly responsible for deploying in significant qualities. It's the rhetorical weapon of choice of today's anti-capitalists and redistributionists.

I've heard scientists say CO2 is the big control knob on climate.

Water vapor is an important greenhouse gas and it does cause more greenhouse warming than CO2 but it's not something we can control. Over 70% of the Earth's surface is covered by oceans that freely evaporate water into the air controlled primarily by temperature. Since water vapor is controlled by temperature it can not drive temperature.

Of the other greenhouse gases you mention it's true that many of them are more effective greenhouse gases than CO2 but their concentration in the atmosphere is so low compared to CO2 that they can almost be ignored with the possible exception of methane. And even methane oxidizes to CO2 and water vapor within 10-20 years so it the long run it's just more CO2.

CO2 more than any other greenhouse gas is the primary controller of Earthly temperatures (after accounting for solar input).

JeremyBoak, Director, Center for Oil Shale Technology and Research, Colorado School of Mines says...

"That CO2 at a few hundred ppm in the atmosphere can in fact substantially alter the climate is well documented physics, because of its very high absorbance of certain wavelengths. That the complex feedback of atmospheric composition and temperature is governed by numerous factors is also well accepted."

and...

"We currently return that carbon to the atmosphere at one billion times the rate at which it was deposited over tens to hundreds of millions of years. As a geologist I have seen the calculations, and they are both rational and scientific."

and...

"It is not unreasonable to conclude that the increase of about 100 ppm in atmospheric CO2 cannot reasonably be achieved under current conditions without both anthropogenic and natural forcings. An increase of 5 ppm per year, as reported by Mr. Southard is a remarkably large increase, given that every decade it increases the CO2 content by 15-20%."

My jaw dropped open. Complete twaddle - and from a geologist at a School of Mines, no less. The scientific method is not his strong point, apparently.

Firstly, the idea that a few hundred ppm of CO2 can substantially alter the climate is not settled science. To the contrary, the radiative transfer theory is highly controversial. And crucially (although presumably this is not considered relevant by Jeremy Boak's flavour of scientific practice) it is a hypothesis that has not been borne out by the facts. Since 1850, when good instrumental temperature measurements began, the world mean surface atmospheric temperature has increased at an average rate of only 0.4degC per HUNDRED YEARS - and for the last 15 years it has not increased at all. So all the predictions of alarming global warming have come to naught. Science bows to good data if the data contradicts an unproven hypothesis. And not the other way round, as any good scientist should know.

Secondly, to say that we are returning CO2 to the atmosphere at "one billion times the rate at which it was deposited" is just scurrilous emotive nonsense worthy only of the worst kind of pathological environmentalist. It does not inform the debate one jot, which should be about when fossil fuels (coal, gas, oil, uranium, etc.) are going to run out (the answer being several hundred years).

Thirdly, if he had bothered to check Mr Southard's figure of 5ppm per year increase he would have found it is completely wrong. The actual increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past 40 years has been almost completely linear at a rate of 1.5ppm per year. So at that rate over the next 88 years to the year 2100, there will be an additional 117 parts per MILLION of CO2 in the atmosphere. Excellent for plants. Completely non-toxic to humans. And historians will be laughing out loud at the gullibility of (some of) their ancestors.

Firstly, the idea that a few hundred ppm of CO2 can substantially alter the climate is not settled science.

Cosserat, if you removed all CO2 from the air the average temperature on the Earth would rather quickly drop below freezing.

I don't see how you can say the average rate of temperature increase per century in 0.4C when the increase since 1900 has been a bit over 0.8C. And I don't see how you can claim there hasn't been any warming in 15 years when the warmest years on record were 2005 and 2010 and the 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998.

Yes, 5 ppm/year was overstated but the atmospheric CO2 curve is not strictly linear but has curved upwards over time. The current rate is closer to 3 ppm/year than 1.5 ppm/year. Scientists have estimated with BAU that we will have doubled CO2 from the starting 280 ppm to 560 ppm sometime in the 2070's.

BTW, uranium is not a fossil fuel but I'm sure you knew that.

riverat1, The only thing you say that is correct is that uranium is not a fossil fuel. Of course I should have said that it is a non-renewable energy resource along with the fossil fuels.

Let me now challenge each of your other points in turn:

(1)"If you removed all CO2 from the air the average temperature on the Earth would rather quickly drop below freezing."

That is a HYPOTHESIS that needs to be tested against real world DATA. The only practical test is to see if man-made CO2 has raised the world mean temperature alarmingly since the beginning of the industrial revolution, a period during which it is widely accepted by almost everyone that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has risen by around 40%. So if removing all the CO2 from the atmosphere would cause a drop of 33degC (a figure that is widely claimed), increasing it by 40% since 1750 should presumably have shown up by now as a really alarming temperature rise, of lets say at least 10 degrees! The FACT is that there isn't any sign in the temperature record of significant warming, just a very unalarming natural variation (see below).

(2)"I don't see how you can say the average rate of temperature increase per century is 0.4C when the increase since 1900 has been a bit over 0.8C."

I can say it because it is true. See: http://www.thetruthaboutclimatechange.org/tempsworld.html
The blue linear regression line shows a long term linear trend since 1850 of 0.41degC per century over the full 161 year period.

The only way you got your figure of 0.8degC (a rise of 0.7deg/century) is by choosing a conveniently shorter period, thus exaggerating the contribution from the upswing that occurred between 1970 and 2000 - an upswing that got the alarmists in a dither and the whole man-made global warming bandwagon under way. You could have chosen an even shorter period. How about 1970 to 2011 - a whopping 1.5degC/century warming? Or I could have chosen the period from 1940 to 1980 - a negligible 0.01degC/century warming. It's called cherry picking. It is NOT SCIENCE.

Of course, the 1970 to 2000 upswing has now ceased, and is most likely going to be trending down for the next 25 years. But, instead of bringing happy smiles of relief to the faces of the alarmists, this has got them into even more of a dither as they see their radiative transfer HYPOTHESIS being slowly but surely negated by FACTS.

(3)"And I don't see how you can claim there hasn't been any warming in 15 years when the warmest years on record were 2005 and 2010 and the 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998."

You really know the warmist film script off by heart don't you. Just take a look at the grey plot between 1998 and 2010 on the temperature graph I linked to above. I will leave it to readers to decide just what level of nonsense you are talking. By the way, since there has been an entirely unalarming natural rising temperature trend of 0.4degC per century for at least the last 200 years, OF COURSE the temperature record will be broken (unalarmingly) every few years. Duh!

(4)"The atmospheric CO2 curve is not strictly linear but has curved upwards over time. The current rate is closer to 3 ppm/year than 1.5 ppm/year."

Well here are some FACTS. The Mauna Loa rate-of-CO2-increase figures for each of the last 10 years in ppm/year are as follows: 2.1, 2.5, 1.7, 2.3, 2.1, 1.8, 1.9, 1.8, 1.8, 2.4, 1.8. I calculate that to be an average rise of 1.8ppm/year. I will leave it to the more mathematically inclined reader to decide whether 1.8ppm/year is nearer to my 1.5ppm/year than it is to your 3.0ppm/year.

(5)"Scientists have estimated with BAU that we will have doubled CO2 from the starting 280 ppm to 560 ppm sometime in the 2070's."

Ah! "Scientists have estimated..." It seems that futurism is all that warmists have left since the FACTS have inconveniently started pointing in the opposite direction. But the real point is that the exact rate of CO2 rise doesn't matter anyway - because the FACTS of the temperature record show that CO2 does not appear to be affecting temperature significantly, if at all.

I know that none of the above will persuade you. But as I have said many times to you in our encounters over the last couple of years, let's just wait and see which of us is right by 2020.

If the trend has drifted upwards alarmingly by 2020, it will be game set and match to the alarmists. But if, as many now believe, the trend is downwards...what then will the alarmists do for a living?

Cheers.

klassman6 here, and I can't let you and riverat1 have all the fun. Your wild assertions are just too irresistable to ignore! First of all, your charting is of the HADCRUT data, instead of the GISS data, which automatically reduces the amount of global temperature anomalies due to the fact that the HADCRUT dataset under-represents the arctic temperature increases due to the paucity of data collection sites in the arctic, an area where the greatest surface temps are taking place.

You talk about how there is only .4C degree per century increase knowing fully well that the rate is increasing over time, not just merrily oscillating away as you selectively define your mathematical description on your website. For instance, 2/3 of the warming from 1880 until the present has occurred since 1975, and global temps in the past decade was about .8C degrees warmer than the 1880-1920 mean. The decadal increases since the 1970s has been between 0.15 and 0.2C degrees.
link: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Hansen_etal.pdf

And then there's the statement about CO2 ppm not being very much, which you correctly attribute the annual average during the last decade as being only 1.8ppm/year, not 3. What you then fail to say is that in the 50s and 60s the annual increase was less than 1ppm/year, or less than half of what it has been for the past 10 years.


Finally, I want to just remind you that your descriptive fit of curve for a relatively short historical duration is just that--a descriptive fit. It has no powers of attribution, is limited in its predictive power (I might say that the earliest section of the temperature curve does not fit your 67 year average anyway), and gives us no insight on the other preponderance of data in all other areas where scientists are monitoring changes attributable to climate change.

I know that not of the above will persuade you, either, but, like I said, I couldn't resist!

Thank you klassman6. I was debating whether to take the time to respond to cosserat but you did it for me. I would like to point out that his TTACC site is using HadCRUT3 data and not the new HadCRUT4 product that does a better job of including the polar regions. HadCRUT4 pretty much agrees with GISS now.

Hi Klassman and Riverat,

Yes, the temperature record COULD go either way from now on, especially if our trustworthy 'climategate' friends at the University of East Anglia manage to RETROFIT THEIR STATISTICS.

If the temperature continues to go up alarmingly, as predicted by Hansen etc., you will be right and there will be a serious problem.

If, as I believe will happen, it stays within the dotted red 'tunnel' lines on my graph, exhibiting a RELATIVE downturn over the next 10-20 years, with a continuing long term average rise of only 0.41degC per CENTURY, then climate alarmism will be dead in the water.

I know which I'm going to bet on.

So, see both you guys back for a rain check in 2020...

All the best.

If the trend has drifted upwards alarmingly by 2020, it will be game set and match to the alarmists. But if, as many now believe, the trend is downwards...what then will the alarmists do for a living?

Well, so far the discernible trend is upward so good luck with that.

Cosserat,
It's fine for us to make an intellectual agreement to revisit this in 2020 to look at the data again. But in the meantime, if you are incorrect, the results will be quite disastrous in that the continued GHG emissions for another 8 years will make the atmospheric carbon pool large enough to in all probability create climatic havoc for hundreds if not thousands of years before natural or human influences can sequester enough carbon again to make a return to pre-industrial levels. Just as a general on the battlefield has to go on incomplete information, experience, hunches and a little luck, human societies are going to have to take action before all the evidence is in on the exact forcing dynamics of climate change is completely understood. Therefore, it seems wisest to aggressively pursue reduced carbon emissions now while we have a chance to impact the processes, backing off later if and only if your predictions, however unlikely they are, turn out to be correct. Doing nothing now will not provide us an option to start that process in 2020 as you suggest would be possible if you are wrong. Such dallying could be unfortunate at best, catastrophic at worst.

...we were all supposed to be doomed by 1978, 1984, 1990...

This current flip-flop of Romney's (just one among many) seems to have come AFTER his shoe-in as the GOP nominee and AFTER his meeting with superpac mega-contributors like the Koch brothers and other big oil power players. Romney knows what side his bread is buttered on. Act accordingly, voters.

Is Obama also not aware "of what side is bread is buttered on"? Has his energy policy been the least bit consistent, or even existent? Or will we have to wait until after his election when he has "more flexibility" to find out what it really is?

I'm sure Barack Obama knows which side his bread is buttered too. Although his energy policies are at least somewhat progressive, they aren't totally regressive as in the case of Mr. Romney.

Do tell. Exactly what is the difference between the two policies beyond the fact that you seem to agree with one and disagree with the other? They're both driven by ideology, and in Obama's case campaign contributions. How is Romney's different? (Other than that he hasn't yet had the opportunity to dispense subsidies to his energy pals)

During this presidential season Mr. Romney has denounced virtually all of the policies he enacted when he was governor of Mass and policies in which he stood for. He's just another example of a politician who's been bought. Romney advocates more oil and coal consumption, more drilling and oil spills, more air pollution, lung and other cancers, and more environmental damage. Despite his rhetoric concerning North American energy independence, the United States will still be just as dependent on Middle East crude as it is now. Not exactly a part of the world that loves America.

Chris Nelder's embarrassingly transparent anguish is based on two false presumptions:

(1) The world is running short of energy resources
(2) The world is warming alarmingly due to man-made CO2 emissions

If neither of these propositions turns out to be true, the whole enviro-driven house-of-cards collapses. We could then stop having all the pointless marginal arguments about subsidies here and boondoggles there. And the democratic nations of the world could finally get on with the real job facing the 21st Century: improving the prosperity and wellbeing of human societies everywhere and, yes, protecting much more effectively the environment for all mankind.

To suggest that the world is running short of energy resources is simply ludicrous. In the short term, coal and gas, and in the long term nuclear fission fuel, is all in plentiful enough supply to see us through several centuries. And that is assuming there are no other new technology breakthroughs in the next 100 years, such as nuclear fusion.

So Nelder and his fellow travelers badly need the second presumption to be true - otherwise the whole gravy train comes to a grinding halt.

For 30 years or more the enviros have been playing the CO2 game very skilfully. But in recent years they have been slowly losing traction as the public has finally come to realise that it is all just a scam cooked up by financial interest groups. Anyone with half a scientific training can see through it. Just look at the published temperature record of the last 150 years: the earth's mean temperature is going up at the rate of 0.4degC per hundred years. Yes, really, that is all that is happening. But of course none of the enviros will face up to real data because they have a mission to achieve. It is all just a bad case of the Emperor's New Clothes...

Fortunately the political system is now finally showing signs of responding to the concerns of ordinary voters. Hence Romney's stance. The same political process is slowly but surely under way in Europe as people over here also ask why their electricity bills are skyrocketing. We have worked out the absurdities of wholly uneconomic wind farms that produce derisory amounts of electricity at huge installed cost, and solar panels that have proved to be less-than-useless in northern latitudes. And we have looked out of the window and simply observed an ever-changing natural climate - up and down, as of old.

Hooray for the democratic process.

The west, Canada and the US, both need to work on renewable resources as well as look for more petrochemical reserves. It's not just one or the other. Also, ethanol production must never ever be considered as a renewable resource. To do that is to court long term disaster. If you rely on ethanol you are mining the soil and eventually destroying potential to raise food crops. There are not enough fertilizers to keep going and so farmers, agro business, have to depend upon chemical fertilizers which after a while create heavily salted land and turn it into a desert. Don't believe that? If you don't then you better do some research and don't look to Dow or Monsanto for facts, they are merely in business to make money for shareholders. What's left then? Solar, wind, and ocean currents. Not tidal power, that has already shown to be a disaster in itself because it disrupts the natural ecology of the coast line and inlets where tidal power would work. Ocean currents can be used to run large undersea turbines to generate power. The infrastructure is big and costly but when in place can work with little maintenance and it is not something that works at a high enough speed to injure fish. Another thing which has not been tried but has some merit is power from the interaction of the earth and Sun's magnetic fields. The scale would be large and probably require countries to work together. The only oil used for such things is for plastics and lubricants. No combustion.

America with hydraulic fracturing now has the possibility of Energy Security and Energy Independence. The EIA states that in 2012 America consumed 17.5 Trillion cu.ft of natural gas for industry and commercial buildings and the power plants. Guess to how much was wasted (40% ?) blown up chimneys across the country as HOT exhaust into the atmosphere. Why does our governments and industry still allow this to happen?
The technology of Condensing Flue Gas Heat Recovery is designed to recover this energy from these exhaust gases, so that it again be utilized back in the building or facility. Natural gas is "our" fuel source that can be consumed to almost 100% energy efficiency. Instead COOL exhaust would be vented into the atmosphere.
Natural gas can be consumed so efficiently that the WATER can be recovered out of the combusted exhaust gases, and this distilled water is very usable.

First off, I feel that Obama has failed to have a coherent energy policy during his term. Throwing money at renewable energy companies because their management helped fund his 2008 campaign is not a good policy for the nation. Which is strike 1 against him.

With that stated, any energy policy implemented by either candidate cannot drive a majority of the US population into poverty for the sake of saving the planet.

Obamas other attempt at an energy policy, cap and trade, would have added an average $1,200 in punitive fossil fuels taxes per person per year for necessities like heating, electricity and transportation. The average American family of 3 cannot afford $3,600 a year which is why most democrats in Congress opposed the president on that one. Strike 2.

Forgetting the ridiculous argument against CO2 for a moment, I will say that clean energy sources are needed to reduce real pollution in the world.

All developed nations, including China, India and Brazil, need to follow the same rules as the western nations if the planet is to be saved. Allowing some of the most populous nations on the planet to escape the rules is negating any positive impact western anti-pollution rules might have. Allowing them to keep polluting while having the EPA crack down on CO2 emissions is strike 3.

Clean energy cannot place all of the financial burden of its implementation on the average lowly citizen. Be it punitive taxes on petroleum products or overly expensive wind and solar projects, you cannot punish the average citizen for needing a way to get to work or wanting lights or heat in their homes.

A competent energy policy needs at least 2 focus points. Improving the efficiency of energy consumption and lowering the cost of clean energy.

The first is obvious. Reduce energy consumption with the hope that new energy uses will not outpace efficiencies gained. We need to reduce or eliminate the need for new power generation capacity.

The second goal is the hard one for many clean energy proponents to swallow.

Clean energy needs to become synonymous with cheaper energy.

Fossil fuels will gradually become more expensive as they becomes scarce. There is no need to force it with punitive taxes against the poor and middle class who cannot afford it. We need to focus on making clean energy technology more affordable to the consumer. Reduced installation costs, reduced operating costs, reduced rates to pass on to the consumer.

Clean energy needs to improve people lives. Not break people.

Cleaner air and water + lower cost of living = a better standard of living for all.

Were I Romney I would not waste my time preparing numerous plans needed by the country to get back to a good and strong path forward until elected. Otherwise Mr. Obama would glean all kinds of grand schemes from what Romney published.

Next if Mr. Obama as President has an "Energy Plan" why has not the darn thing alread been put in place rather than waiting until this moment to say looky-looky I have a plan? Because someone that works for him just finished writing something. You really think some darn fool lawyer that has never had a real job in his life could prepare a meanigful Energy Plan or a Business Plan for that matter?

Well, jwknight, you apparently have not been paying attention. Obama cannot get any co-operation from the Republicans to get much done. They do not want to help America, only themselves. What a bunch of useless morons. Shame on people for electing these idiots.

Obama had controlling majorities in both houses of Congress his first 2 years.

Including a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. If they knew what they were doing they could have passed any legislation they wanted to.

The problem was with the poor leadership from Obama, Reid and Pelosi. They could not get a majority of their own party members on board with their plans.

Quick update. Apparently Bob Woodward, Watergate fame, has a book coming out blasting the democrat leadership. At one point he details how the President went into a rambling lecture while on a debt conference call with Pelosi. She is reported by witnesses to have muted her side of the call and let him drone on for almost an hour while her and Reid tried to work on the issue.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/06/news/economy/woodward-debt-ceiling/index.html

So please forget blaming republicans. It sounds like a child whining or fingernails on a chalkboard.

The situation is so bad within the democrat party that they have failed to even pass a budget during Obamas term in office. The crowning glory of it was Obamas 2012 budget going down by a 99 to 1 vote in the Senate with guess who being the only supporter. Not a single democrat supported it even though they had an easy majority and could have passed it.

Even after Teddy Kennedy died to get past any filibuster they only need to convince 1 republican to join them. Republican moderate Scott Brown (R-MA) is that reasonable person. He has been voted the 1st or 2nd most bipartisan member of Congress for 2011 by nearly every honest policy tracking organization. Even now they just have to convince 4 republicans to vote with them.

Recently Brown and Snowe have been very compromising. Leadership gets their votes and quits trying so they can blame republicans.

Face it. Obama is a piss poor leader if he cannot convince his own people and 1 lone republican to support him on a budget bill.

So blaming republicans is just a poor excuse for bad leadership. Please give up that sad argument.

radio.va7dh says... "Another thing which has not been tried but has some merit is power from the interaction of the earth and Sun's magnetic fields. The scale would be large and probably require countries to work together."

It's great to hear about this new breakthrough. As an electrical engineer, I obviously haven't been keeping my ear to the ground (or should it have been to the sky?) so I have missed out on hearing about it. We should get the IPCC onto it - they are great at getting countries to work together.

So why don't you just knock up a prototype and report back?

I won't hold my breath, though, if you don't mind. And while I am waiting I will continue to point out that coal, gas and nuclear do the job extraordinarily well.

...but reasoned discussion has long gone out of the window on the issue of energy, economics and climate science, where political affiliation is now the the sole determining factor of one's facts, on the comment boards.

Everyone is shopping for answers. Shopping for answers is like asking your mother if you can go to a friend's house and then asking your father if your mother said "no".

Sid Abma says: "The EIA states that in 2012 America consumed 17.5 Trillion cu.ft of natural gas for industry and commercial buildings and the power plants. Guess to how much was wasted (40% ?) blown up chimneys across the country as HOT exhaust into the atmosphere. Why does our governments and industry still allow this to happen?"

and:

"The technology of Condensing Flue Gas Heat Recovery is designed to recover this energy from these exhaust gases, so that it again be utilized back in the building or facility."

Er, could it, just possibly, be something to do with economics? Like the power stations not all being conveniently near the places that could do with the heat - and long distance lossless pipes still being a dream of the future?

Duh!

you are talking about heat recovery. Co-generation facilities have been doing this for several decades. But, the total waste heat gained is not great. Yes, utilities can do so, if there is a need. Some Cities have downtown pipelines for distribution of hot and cold water, with the source being a nearby small generation facility.

There are also a few industrial facilities that can use waste heat at higher temperatures. Those usually have circulating hot oil. This gives temperatures of up to a couple of hundred degrees C. Higher temperatures than that require an on site heat source.

Most of the gains for this type of thing are limited and local. About half of what could be reasonably done is already being done. It takes a good cost/benefit analysis to find if it is worth it for any single facility. You can't be very far from the heat source. Payback is usually required to be less than 7 years. 3 years for some industries.

Regardless of who will be the next president, it is very important we understand the use of alternative energy. There are some very simple measures that can save almost 45 to 50% energy. In particular solar thermal is a well known technology. Any industry which uses hot water (hotels, motels, commercial laundry, army barracks, poultry industry, alcohol industry, large apartment complexes and the list goes on), should seriously consider installing solar thermal. Besides solar thermal assisted dehumidifiers have done a great job in reducing the A/C demand by almost 35 to 40%. The PCM (phase change materials) have revolutionized the length of time water being kept hot or cold making the solar thermal technology even more attractive.
Countries like Puerto Rico where there is no natural gas and electricity is the only way out,the cost of electricity is 3 to 4 times what we pay on the East coast. Here we calculated that the ROI will be as little as 4 years(without any tax credit) to recoup all the money spent upfront and make a decent profit for almost 15 years.
Recently we visited a US government facility. They brought in outside air at 80 to 90*F at almost 80% relative humidity. This was chilled to 45*F to remove the moisture! It was then reheated using hot water (large commercial boilers which break down within 4 to 5 years due to over working) to 65*F!! Talk about waste of energy and tax payer money. They can easily install solar thermal to heat the huge amount of water, install solar thermal assisted dehumidifiers and reheat using solar thermal heat. The savings calculated was almost 55 to 60%. Lo and behold, they would rather continue to do what they are doing now and keep changing the boilers every 5 to 7 years. Talk about rank stupidity.. Educate, educate, educate.....

for such a facility, I would recommend solar cooling. A good solar collector can heat up air and rock to around 90 C. That is enough to drive an ammonia cycle refrigeration system. The cold air can be re-heated with the waste heat from the ammonia system.

Basically, how this works is that water with ammonia is heated, and the ammonia is driven off. The, the water is cooled down to ambient temperature. The water and ammonia are then re-introduced. This is an endothermic reaction, and cools the water by quite a lot. The cold water is then circulated to cool the air. The now warmer water/ammonia mixture is then routed back to the hot end, and the process starts all over again.

This is how gas powered refrigerators work. It's an old process.

Still, what the Federal Building you looked at is doing is less expensive. There is a lot of equipment required for a solar based system. Solar also has severe corrosion problems in many areas.

Sometimes, the life cycle analysis gives the 'efficient' or 'green' solutions a much higher resource usage than just burning a little more fuel gives. It's a complicated question.

That is one of many points of energy efficiency that could be gained with relatively low effort compared to some of the other wild proposals that keep coming up to expand our energy production.

Of course implementing a plan like that would take the kind of long term planning and fore thought that politicians do not like because it does not buy votes right now.

Neider is WRONG please read "It's still mostly about supply and demand, not government" comment.

Carlos F Zavala Please review and comment on:

http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Pitfalls-Fossil-Fuels-Based-Economic-3227636.S.123004383?qid=92806303-c67c-4bbe-8314-a02c9a522a95&trk=group_items_see_more-0-b-ttl

There is some important information I've provided that can both revitalize the US economy and provide guidance on the conundrum of long term environmental sustainability in the face of the economic pressure to exploit our resources. It's a long slog and some conservatives have thrown everything they have at it. But I am convinced I speak more truth than they do, though I admit they may have some important points to consider.

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/343202/title/The_Facts_Behind_the_Frack

Sixty cents of every Federal tax dollar goes to "defense". Is this considered a subsidy to keep the price of oil low? If not, please explain. If so, what percentage of defense spending can be attributed to "oil subsidies"?

With the media so hungry to soak up the dollars floating around from the fossil fuel industry and from the pro-Romney PACs, how will the industries that don't yet exist but provide capitalistic competitionever get a foothold or a voice?

If one looks at the supply/demand curve isn't it apparent that scarcity breeds profits, even if the scarcity is fabricated? And what about the scarcity of resource options for future generations we are sinking human civilization into; when will we begin to look at the destruction of the environment as a debt we are passing onto our children that is much larger than any fiscal debt?

Sixty cents of every Federal tax dollar goes to "defense".

And out of what hat did you pull that imaginary figure? Hyperbole like that discredits anything else you might have to say.

If only. At least we'd be closer to full employment that we are under the entitlement state, which is where the "sixty cents" really goes.

If you look at the US Federal Budget, you will find that the DOD gets only about 28 Cents out of each Federal Dollar. The single biggest cut is Debt Servicing. Second is 'Entitlements' (Welfare, Social Security, Pensions and a few other things). Defense is third. Some sorces will, depending on where various programs are placed, might reverse the first and second, but Defense was still third, and this was before Obama cut the size of the Armed Forces in half. In this years figures, Defense might just be fourth.

Sorry, but your figures are not from a reputable source.

Additional trivia: At current rates of growth, we will soon be paying more in interest payments to China that we do on the entire DOD. We will literally be funding China's military at a greater amount than our own. How long do you think that will work out well for us?

Is this "SmartPlanet" or a blog featuring the talking points of the DNC? Personally, I find the politicizing of energy a very serious and dangerous pursuit. Man made global warming has been fairly well debunked and the latest energy "policies" have been nothing more than land grab equivalents and payoffs to political cronies. Let the free markets decide and stay away from my lightbulbs.

You say "Man made global warming has been fairly well debunked" and yet many of the predicted effects of global warming continue to happen often at a rate greater than predicted. So what's your explanation for those effects?

Much of the data was manufactured while many other factors were ignored. While we know that the earth goes through periodic warming and cooling cycles the fundamental question is whether man's habitation has an impact on these processes. The answer has yet to be demonstrated. Much if not all of the current temperature increases parallel increases in solar output and have little if anything to do with your car. The only constant in the earth's surface temperature is change. So relax, keep on learning, and be a good steward instead of a lemming.

Much if not all of the current temperature increases parallel increases in solar output...

That's pretty funny. If anything average solar output has been declining slightly since the 1950's.

Global Warming, Global Cooling, all things "Green", Politically Correct New Tech, All of these things should answer your questions.

But, this is still a site where we can find things that are unusual. Just remember the politics of the site.

So, take the blogs with a grain of salt. Economics still determines what wins. But yes, this site DOES worship at the alter of Saint Al Gore.

As an adult, you are supposed to be able to sift the gold from the sand. They have both.

Here are More characteristics, novel style,varieties,and good quality low price

http://dv.gd/wul

http://dv.gd/wul

I WILL BE HONEST NONE OF THESE PEOPLE CAN DO MUCH FOR THE USA. ALL THESE FAKE PROMISES ARE JUST GETTING PEOPLE MAD. YOU REALLY WANT TO HELP THE ECONOMY HAVE ALL THESE PARASITES WORK FOR THE BENEFITS THEY GET FOR FREE. YOU WANT FOOD STAMPS, MEDICAID, WIC , WELFARE AND SECTION 8, YOU MUST WORK FOR IT AT A LOCAL HOSPITAL , SHELTER OR CLEANING PARKS ETC. THESE POLITICIANS ARE ABUSING THE WORKING CLASS AND THE IRS IS A GOVERNMENT MAFIA. FIX THIS MESS. ALSO DO MORE ABOUT THESE IMMIGRANTS COMING HERE FOR ALL THESE WHAT THEY CALL FREE BENEFITS.

Fascinating, how almost every US discussion in the internet is divided into those two opposing persuasions. Both sides - democrats and republicans - claim to have facts but not only seem the facts to be contradictory both sides lack to view at the broader picture, the interconnections. That is why I offer a model on the arguments found on the topic of energy policy:
https://www.imodeler.info/ro?key=AZd58lmiCDR8wL7iZ6fZkHA
Apart from that model would like to mention that it doesn't has to be for the environment's sake that we change energy policies - it is for pure economical reason. A few simple questions should work:

1. Cheap (fossil) energy saves jobs, right?
2. Will there be an end to cheap fossil energy?
3. What should our children or grandchildren (personally I think it will affect already me)use then?
4.Ah, so you are for renewables, too, but you think it takes more time and we need to be able to afford it?
4.1. What will make renewables less expensive?
5. Ah, you think there will be thorium or uranium to get rid of all problems?
5.1. Why aren't they used already if they are an inexpensive alternative?

And so on. The US has its own fossil resources - Europe has too few of its own. No expert will dispute that it will become ever more expensive to drill for oil and gas. So Europe will next to interestingly China start developing the much needed technology for the future and the best that can happen is that the US is voting for republicans and the competitive edge goes to Europe (I live there . But it isn't that funny for Europe as well because as Chris N. mentioned every year that passes without progress means that it becomes more likely that economic activity will collapse with every cent we have to pay more for resources we have less to spend for things that create jobs. There lies the vicious cycle. Once started the whole economy will soon collapse (I have written about it in my books). Another argument: the costs of renewable energy and its technology today heavily depends on the costs of fossil energy. So if it is too expensive today to build solar panels it won't become cheaper tomorrow. But if you compare the effect of subsidies for fossil energy with that of renewable energy you have to take into account that the 'fuel' for renewables comes in most cases for free - it is not the MW installed, it is to total cost per megawatt over a facility's lifespan.
A Chinese saying: Dig a well when you have the power not when you are thirstily!

Here we go again. When are the people who control this site going to wake up and stop the idiots who want to use it as a base for expressing their political beliefs. We want facts and all we get with articles like this is someone's opinion of what someone might do when they get in office. Get off the politics and back to science.

...that at some point it wasn't about "politics". IMHO, this site has always been about statist ambitions and crony capitalism.

Well, even if we omit any scientific proof it is pure logic that fossil energy including nuclear isn't endless and has to become more expensive. Also it is logical that today's larger companies need to focus on short or at most mid term profit, isn't it. Does anybody think that the big oil companies strategically care for the future of the next generation? Those who do get beaten by their competitors.
That is the task of a government - to control the bigger forces of the economy and preserve the chances of a good life for future generations. If they are left without control the system would indeed regulate itself, but not through reason but through severe social conflicts and other catastrophes.
Well, even if the world wide science society agrees on something there are forces that say there is a contrary scientific proof that some people will immediately belief in just if it is in favor for 'their demagogues'. It would indeed be great if scientific proof and even more important a transparency of the interconnections (www.imodeler.net) would make this world a better place but it is in our very nature that we follow the words of demagogues.
Every country has at least two parties and two opinions on several topics but few countries have one party where almost all the rest of the world (media, people I meet on international, e.g. banking, conferences - even if they call themselves conservative) is wondering how stupid arguments can be and how stupid almost half of the country's population seems to be. In my latest book I gave an explanation how this could be possible ...

Marketing ideas might work for fossil fuels, but for nuclear, there is such a strong NIMBY movement in this country that extraordinarily strong political leadership is needed to move to new nuclear plants for electricity. That aside, absent fossil fuel, wind, solar, and biofuels will only meet a tiny fraction of our energy needs. Of course, if nuclear power is plentiful, energy from those could be used to hydrolyze water for the hydrogen, and extract carbon from the atmosphere to create synfuel. This wouldn't be cheap, but it would be a lot better than reverting to horse travel.

I write about our energy future at 21st Century Tech blog and today I posted an article on the current state of cold fusion, the low-energy nuclear technology that never seems to get to market. What surprised me was Mitt Romney's view on cold fusion. See my posting at: http://www.21stcentech.com/cold-fusion-update-lots-hot-air-lenr-device/

this article is written with bias. However, regardless of the stance, the President has failed to fulfill any of his promises, including in the area of conservation efforts. I would like to see action in a plan... not just words on paper...

Since the 1970's there have been dire predictions on running out of oil. It was supposed to happen in the 1990's when it didn't happen then the expected date was moved forward over and over again. There is no doubt that the amount of oil to be found is not endless but it seems their predictions are not connected with the real improvements in the technology of oil recovery.
Global warming, excuse me climate change is now the buzz word of the tree huggers. It's real interesting to note that one of the present proponents of this put out a book in the 1970-80's that the next ice age was coming. Climate changes as a method for extracting money from the government is always a popular past time.
Build a better crisis and the world will throw money at your feet. The crisis should be far enough in the future that today's changes can't be expected for immediate improvements but close enough that it strikes fear into the uninformed.

Lets hope they finally set up an energy plan that takes into consideration the climate change and a renewable policy.


IT solutions for renewables

"""...citing U.S. oil production at 15 million barrels per day, according to the Washington Post, when the reality is 6.2 million barrels per day """

No, that Wa Post article does not state Romney made such a statement. H

Transcripts are available as to what Gov Romney actually did say in the energy speech in Hobbs, NM, where he repeated referred to North America as an entity, and said, "Were producing in North America about 15 million barrels a day", about which the Governor was entirely correct.
http://www.whatthefolly.com/2012/08/24/transcript-mitt-romney-presents-energy-plan-in-new-mexico/