Re: McCain's energy plan
- From: Islander <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 10:30:50 -0700
Alan Lichtenstein wrote:
Islander wrote:---[snip]---
Alan Lichtenstein wrote:
Where did you find that he is waiting for Congress to pass legislation? His challenge is to the scientists, as it should be.
In Monday's WSJ Personal Journal Section which was devoted to Debating the Issues, and which covered four issues debated by representatives of both campaigns, Obama's representative was reported to have stated that Senator Obama is not opposed to nuclear energy unless congress passes a 'larger energy plan.' That plan includes waste removal and transportation of those wastes. Which is, IMHO, 'passing the buck,' and allowing him to sit on the fence.
You might consider that "passing the buck," but I see that as a standard that he is applying to all the candidate energy sources. The energy companies have gotten used to externalizing the environmental costs of their businesses. I applaud Obama's attention to the cost to the commons across the energy alternatives.
---[snip]---
---[snip]---Fact of the matter is that we need a major
alternative source of energy to produce electricity NOW, and the nuclear option is currently available and would significantly reduce the consumption of oil, as a majority of the power plants use oil to produce electricity.
To your last point, only 1.1% of power generation is based on oil. Just under 50% is produced from coal fired plants. Our major consumption of oil is in transportation, not power generation.
I had stated that 50% is generated by fossil fuels, which include coal.
I concede that you may have *meant* to say "fossil" but you *did* say "oil." Neither Obama nor McCain rule out coal, but it has it's own waste disposal problem, that of reliable sequestering of CO2.
Either way, we nuclear energy is a desired alternative, as it reduces carbon emissions, has no other non-polluting properties or adverse environmental effects, and is available and likely to remain so.
I'm afraid that you are expressing an opinion regarding pollution here. Safe waste disposal is a pollution problem that has yet to be satisfactorily solved.
---[snip]---
Well, then we agree that his plan lacks necessary ambition. But surely you must realize that 150 billion dollars is not a drop in the ocean, and if he was going to spend that sum, or perhaps increase it, as I believe it should have been, don't you think that he should have set some quite specific goals? Because if you don't, his plan becomes essentially no different from John McCain's who says give tax credits to industry and let them develop it without government interference. And McCain's plan is cheaper. If government is going to foot the bill, then it should set quite specific goals. McCain is giving tax credits to industry, and Obama is giving handouts to the scientific community, both with no specifics as to any kind of product they want to see produced. Surely, Islander, you recognize the similarity with both plans. Which is one of the shortcomings I see in both camps. Except Obama's costs a lot more.
A good manager describes programs in terms of the results desired, not the approach used. When JFK set the goal of "a man on the moon in this decade," he didn't specify how it would be done, for example.
If anything, Obama has been too specific in his energy plan, IMV. The extent to which his plan lacks "ambition" is that his long term goals are not ambitious enough. In that respect, Gore's plan is better (zero carbon emissions in 10 years), but has no chance of getting sufficient support to be transformed into a funded program.
.
- References:
- Re: McCain's energy plan
- From: Islander
- Re: McCain's energy plan
- Prev by Date: Re: Anyone Listen To Hillary's Denver Speech Tonight?
- Next by Date: Arctic sea ice reaches second lowest level on record
- Previous by thread: Re: McCain's energy plan
- Next by thread: Re: McCain's energy plan
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
