leadership? there just ain't none ...

[welshTerrier2]

the great campaign of 2008 rages on ... oh, it's sooooooo important. those candidates are really hammering away at the real issues and problems that confront us ... what great leaders they'll all be ...

are you kidding me???? are you????

please feel free to educate all of us on your candidate's position on global warming. and, don't feel too bad, it's not just the candidates - it's both parties and pretty much everyone else too.

here's some information I've been digging up about global warming. I'm no scientist. If you have better information and analysis, I'd love to hear it.

The Energy Bill the Democrats are currently pushing includes two key proposals to reduce our energy consumption. One is an increase in CAFE standards from 26 miles per gallon to 35 mpg. According to a post by Arianna Huffington today, each 3 mpg increase will reduce our oil consumption by one million barrels per day. So, the CAFE improvements, due by the year 2020 per the Democrats' energy bill, will save us about 3 million barrels per day. With me so far?

The second key feature of the Democrats' bill is to require that 15% of our energy come from renewable sources by the year 2020. That's 13 years from now.

That's the program Democrats have proposed to save us and the rest of the planet from the ravages of global warming.

Well, let's dig a little deeper. Current oil consumption in the US is 20 million barrels per day. Projections for the year 2020 seem to show that US demand will increase to 26 million barrels per day. That's an increase of about 6 million barrels per day. Renewables could cut that number down by 15%. 26 million times 15% means that you would save roughly 4 million barrels a day by using renewables.

So, let's add up the savings the Democrats plan provides. We saved about 3 million barrels by raising the CAFE standards. We would save about another 4 million barrels per day by using renewables. Adding the two together, the Democrats plan would save us about 7 million barrels a day by the year 2020.

But wait just a minute there. That 7 million barrels a day is a reduction from the projected 26 million barrels we'll use per day by 2020. That means that our projected oil use in 2020 will be a whopping 19 million barrels per day. The current use is 20 million barrels per day. The Democrats plan will actually only lessen current usage by 5% (20 million barrels per day compared to 19 million barrels per day in 2020).

Does the math I'm using seem logical and valid?

Now, if the Democrats' plan is calling for a 5% reduction over the next 13 years, that only about a .4 of 1% reduction per year. Now when you stack that up against all the global warming risks, what's your assessment of what the Democrats have done with their energy plan? Our coastal cities may have to be evacuated. All sorts of species may become extinct. Agricultural regions could go barren. The oceans could go barren. The American west and Africa could have no sources of water. And the plan offers a meager .4 of 1% a year reduction in oil consumption???!!!

What's missing, of course, is any meaningful call for deep, mandatory CONSERVATION measures. We have no choice anymore. We have to start looking at mandatory, severe reductions in auto use. The sooner we address this reality, the less harsh our suffering will be. I'd like to start with a 50% mandatory reduction in auto use. That's right, 50%. The only way to make this work is to call for a massive mass transit program. Real mass transit instead of the tinker toy system with have today. And how would we pay for it? Maybe the best way to protect the country isn't building an endless stream of military weapons systems. Maybe the best way to protect the country is to build something that will protect us from the clear and present danger of global warming. Mass transit is what we really need; not more bombers. We have more than enough of those.

Unfortunately, we still play our little "candidates on parade" games. This one insulted that one. This one was forced to apologize. This one's ahead by 5% in some state or other. Wake up you macaroons!!!! The planet is at risk. How have we managed to create a political process that values winning so highly that we don't demand real plans from our candidates on the most critical issues? That's really the source of the problem here. Global warming is the disease but the failure of our political institutions to address it is the real problem. And they dance and spin and smile for us. They're all so pretty.

[MuseRider]

1. K&R n/t

[here_is_to_hope]

2. I think the "race for '08" is

a joke at this point...I do not weigh in on any "my candidate" or "that candidate" posting, its silly to me to have discussions at this point in the "game".
This energy bill...by 2020, we will be well past peak oil but then and frankly, 35 mpg is what I can get now in my old Volvo if I try hard....it was built in 1987...
Leadership? From these wahoo's?
Embarrassing...

[Totally Committed]

3. Everyone on this board probably knows by now what Hillary's campaign song is.

Do they know that peak oil is now expected to occur almost seven years earlier than last reported?

What about peak water?

What about the environment?

What about single-payer unviversal not-for-profit healthcare?

What about PEACE????????????

The race for 2008 is a joke... a joke that brings tears to my eyes.

TC

[bvar22]

4. K&R

I am crying too.

[welshTerrier2]

5. crickets ...

chirp ... chirp ... chirp ...

tick ... tick ... tick ...

[Totally Committed]

6. I love your threads .......

:)


TC

[welshTerrier2]

8. well, thanks TC

this "math" I've written about is incredibly disturbing. is it right? is it wrong? the math seems pretty basic to me.

the barrels per day really brings home the question that keeps coming up on DU. yeah, the Dems don't have the votes. yeah, it's good they were able to make progress on energy. but take that stupid expression people keep posting "the perfect is the enemy of the good." the message is that we're purists who are unwilling to compromise. the problem is that global warming is global warming. IT doesn't compromise; it just does what it does. it makes not a bit of difference whether I "compromise" or not. Either the Energy Bill is a good start and we should feel good about it because it will make a real difference on global warming or it does not.

And again, the issue is NOT whether Dems could have passed a stronger bill. the issue is that, if my math is even close to correct, they really aren't focusing the national attention on the issue in the way that is needed. If they wage the battle and lose, I support them. When they don't say what needs to be said, it's not really clear where they even stand. It sure looks like they're putting politics ahead of policy. I think we're running out of time and just can't afford to play these little games anymore. I'm glad they want to go in the right direction. But they haven't said the measures they've offered are adequate. Given the risks raised by Gore and by numerous climate scientists, it seems like they've accomplished only a drop in the bucket. Nice? sure. But it seems pretty damned anemic given the risks we face.

Where are all the Hillary supporters? Do they want to take issue with this? Are they willing to explain her thoughts or just her latest endorsement or poll results? And the same goes for all the others as well. I know you know this.

BTW, Levin and Stabenow opposed the CAFE standards. I believe they wanted to push them out a little further. I wonder if they and many of the candidate supporters think all the global warming talk is just hysteria and fear mongering? The data are out there for all to see; the silence is deafening.

the great Energy Bill coming out of the Democratically-controlled legislature will make a whopping 5% reduction in fossil fuel burning by the time 2020 rolls around. 5% stinking percent in 13 years. Does this actually give anyone the warm and fuzzies?

[ulysses]

7. I'm reading, Terrier.

Busy at the moment. I'll be back tonight.

[welshTerrier2]

9. looking forward to it ...

thanks, Uly ...

[some guy]

10. not exactly in line with what you're asking

I'm not finding a mandatory reduction in auto use, nor more mass transit, but Mr Kucinich is calling for

" ...a renewable energy portfolio of 20% by 2010. And that means introducing wind, solar, hydrogen, geothermal, biomass, and all of the options that must be available and need incentivizing. That also means withdrawing incentives for the production of nonrenewable energy. "

*snip*

" I would initiate a "Global Green Deal" to use our country's leadership in sustainable energy production to provide jobs at home, increase our independence from foreign oil, and aid developing nations with cheap, dependable, renewable energy technologies like wind and solar. A clean environment, a sustainable economy, and an intact ozone layer are not luxuries, but necessities for our planet's future. "

link:
http://kucinich.us/issues/environment.php

I'm not sure what specific legislation he has sponsored recently.

How are you on the other issues? Maybe I'll switch from supporting Mr Kucincich to backing your candidacy. :D

My guy (Mr Kucinich) isn't perfect on all the issues, but he's pretty close, which is why I support him.

:hi:

[welshTerrier2]

12. i voted for Dennis in 2004

right now, I'll probably vote for him again. trust me, you wouldn't want me to run. I can't even get the Democratic committee I'm on to do anything. i'd rather work behind the scenes as a policy analyst or some job like that. if anybody's reading this, I'M AVAILABLE. I won't hold my breath.

There's a million of those X% renewables by year Y plans. Senator Klobuchar (D-MN) is pushing one she calls 25 by 25. 25% renewables by 2025. these plans, coupled with all the great technology we're hopefully going to invent and deploy, is supposed to save us. well, let's hope so.

I'm afraid no one is willing to talk about the really hard choices we have to make because "bad news is seen as bad politics". perhaps that's true. the problem is that sometimes bad news is the TRUTH we need to hear. that's why the title of the OP talks about leadership. someone needs to "get out in front" and take the risk. my sense is that there's a real hunger in this country and the first person, or party, who stops playing it safe will be handsomely rewarded. right now, the argument is that bad news is bad politics. my take is that bad policy is bad politics.

[some guy]

14. So did I.

Vote for Mr Kucinich in 2004. But I do like your call for mandatory conservation, and mass transit.

" my sense is that there's a real hunger in this country and the first person, or party, who stops playing it safe will be handsomely rewarded. "

Maybe and maybe.

Some one - Kpete, I think, had a thread about the brilliance of Mr Gore's stealth presidential campaign, how he was dangling the idea of a candidacy, but not committing, and it allowed him to talk about issues and get exposure. That was sort of the final push that got me interested in reading The Assault on Reason. A lot of posters, at least here, are hungry for a Gore presidential run. I'm hungry for change. I like everything in Mr Gore's book. As soon as he announces as a candidate, he will lose the capacity to speak as openly on issues as he (presumably, I don't own a tv) is doing, and will become just another horse in the race to the tv media.

Anyone willing to talk about the reality, though would have to be connected to one of the major parties, because otherwise, their initiatives would simply get buried in a protect-our-parties bipartisan backlash from Congress. There simply aren't enough regular people in this country who are able to spend a sufficient amount of time to effectively pressure their representatives to actually represent we the people.

Wouldn't it be fun to see the House pass some piece of legislation, call it a day, and walk out to 500,000 people who essentially, say, "Nope. Wrong answer. Go back in and get that legislation right, because we're not letting you leave here until you do."

I occasionally sees glimmers of possibility, but for the most part, I think this world is f*cked. Which makes it hard for me personally to maintain the enthusiasm to consistently do the fighting I should on its behalf.

[rucky]

11. It depends on what the projected increase is based on.

If it's pure population growth, then your math seems ok. If it's based on our current trend of consumption of non-renewables and gas-guzzling cars, then the Dem plan will decrease it by roughly what they say it will. which is still not enough.

[welshTerrier2]

13. here was one of many sources I started with

i read all kinds of "projected oil use" reports this morning. this one was just from a forum but I liked some of the discussion about the IEA proposal for "free" mass transit. I've been an advocate for totally free mass transit since the late 60's.

think of it this way: we're being "attacked" by global warming and the Congress is still voting for hundreds of Billions of more spending in Iraq. Which is the greater threat to us? and it's not just Iraq. Our military budget, according to some, exceeds the total of all other military budgets in the entire world combined. How crazy is that? What could we accomplish with new technology and real mass transit if we spent even half of that bloated military budget fighting a real "attacker"?

source: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption

Hi Michael, you're right. The IEA has estimated that demand for oil in the United States would reach 28.3 million barrels per day in 2025, with transportation demand projected to grow to 41.2 quadrillion Btu in 2025. It has projected that energy use for transportation in China would be 14.0 quadrillion Btu in 2025.
**********************************************
According to Al Jazeera, an International Energy Agency (IEA) report suggests that governments should cut back fuel consumption by encouraging car-pooling, cutting or eliminating bus and subway fares, and enforcing speed restrictions and compulsory driving bans.

The driving bans suggested include requiring everyone not to drive one day out of every 10, or limiting vehicles with odd- or even-numbered license plates to driving on odd- or even-numbered days.

The IEA study admits that enforcing such bans would require the hiring of additional police or traffic officers. They estimate that one additional officer would be required for every 100,000 employed people.

An emergency treaty of the IEA – the Agreement on an International Energy Program – would require member countries to reduce oil consumption by seven to 10 percent if activated. The world’s five biggest economies – United States, Japan, Germany, United Kingdom and France – are all members of the IEA.

[AlGore-08.com]

15. Al Gore's 10 point plan to combat global warming

http://www.algore.org/Gores_10_Point_Plan_To_Combat_Global_Warming

1.) Immediately freeze carbon at the existing level; then implement programs to reduce it 90% by 2050.

2.) Reduce taxes on employment and production, instead taxing pollution (especially CO2). These pollution taxes would raise the same amount of money, but make us more competitive by encouraging employment while discouraging pollution.

3.) A portion of the revenues must be earmarked for low-income and middle class people who will have a difficult time making this transition.

4.) Negotiate a strong global treaty to replace Kyoto, while working toward de facto compliance with Kyoto. Move the start date of this new treaty forward from 2012 to 2010, so the next president can to act immediately, rather than waste time trying to pass Kyoto right before it expires. We have to try to get China and India to participate in the treaty. If they don’t immediately participate, we have to move forward with the treaty regardless, trusting that they will join sooner rather than later.

5.) Impose a moratorium on construction of any new coal-fired power plant not compatible with carbon capture and sequestration.

6.) Develop an "electranet" -- a smart grid that allows individual homeowners and small businesses to create green power and sell their excess power to the utility companies at a fair price. Just as widely distributed information processing led to a large new surge of productivity, we need a law that allows widely distributed energy generation to be sold into the grid, at a rate determined not by a the utility companies, but by regulation. The goal is to create a grid that does not require huge, centralized power plants.

7.) Raise CAFE standards for cars and trucks as part of a comprehensive package. Cars and trucks are a large part of the problem, but coal and buildings must be addressed at the same time.

8.) Set a date for the ban of incandescent light bulbs that gives industry time to create alternatives. If the date is set, industry will meet this challenge.

9.) Create Connie Mae, a carbon-neutral mortgage association. Connie Mae will defer the costs of things like insulation and energy efficient windows which cut carbon but are often not used by builders or renovators because they add to the upfront costs of homes, only paying for themselves after several years of energy savings.

10.) The SEC should require disclosure of carbon emissions in corporate reporting.

[ellisonz]

16. "nattering nabobs of negativism"

<snark>

[welshTerrier2]

17. here's another ...

"Perhaps the place to start looking for a credibility gap is not in the offices of the Government in Washington but in the studios of the networks in New York!" - Spiro Agnew

He may have been on to something ...