I think that it is a good idea that Bush is pushing us off of a fossil-fuel based economy, but I think the change should be more aggressive, putting more money into research of new car engines and fuels and research into viable commercial fusion reactors, and for the present, the building of more nuclear fission powerplants. I mean, think of it this way: the less we use fossil fuels, the more we can move out of all those middle eastern countries, so none of their conflicts would have to concern us through deals and treaties, and they could just go at each other without us having to go in there just to protect our interests. And there are even more benefits to “clean” power technologies, such as in the form or readily available and renewable fuel, i.e. hydrogen for fusion reactors and fuel cells.
[ February 06, 2002, 15:22: Message edited by: Jack_Crusher ]
Posted by Tahna Los (Member # 33) on :
Everyone has a different approach to this. Not everybody's approach may satisfy everyone. I'm in wait-and-see mode at the moment.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:I think that it is a good idea that Bush is pushing us off of a fossil-fuel based economy...
I dodn't think that what Mr. Bush has done up to this point supports that statement.
Posted by USS Vanguard (Member # 130) on :
Well I think this, since its political, could easily devolve into a flame board discussion. Perhaps it would better be served there?
A pre-emptive strike. so to speak.
[ February 06, 2002, 17:54: Message edited by: USS Vanguard ]
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
That's where political arguments have tended to go, yes.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Wasn't even much of an argument.....yet.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Well, political posts in general. Everything in its place, you know. Or something.
Mr. Jack_Crusher: This doesn't count as a demerit or anything. Discuss away! Just thought I'd move it to somewhere more appropriate.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
We covered this in my "Fuel Cells!" thread. Go there.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
It just struck me...Bush doing the car fuel cell thing is like putting save the whales on the back of biggest suv you can find....you live and act one way and toss a bumper sticker at the real problem.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
And, in your problem, the "real problem" that Bush is still contributing to would be...?
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
One problem is that fuel cells puts off "reforms" to the automotive industry by ten to twenty years, whereas the Clinton/Gore plan (Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles) would've had to be in effect within the next few years.
All Bush did was buy the Automotive industry another decade or two where they can make gas-guzzlers. Let's celebrate that, let's celebrate the 150 million cars WITHOUT a fuel economy Americans'll buy between now and 2012.
What foolishness.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Or more specifically, he bought Big Oil another two decades. They scratched his back by buying him the Presidency, now he's scratching theirs. Lovely, isn't it?
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
I can smell the flowers in the air Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
All Bush did was buy the Automotive industry another decade or two where they can make gas-guzzlers. Let's celebrate that, let's celebrate the 150 million cars WITHOUT a fuel economy Americans'll buy between now and 2012.
Which would be about equivalent to the 250-million somewhat-reduced emission cars that would have been produced before fuel cells were created under the Clinton plan. Or more specifically, he bought Big Oil another two decades.
That statement made little or no sense.
A) Why in the WORLD would you want to put the energy industry out of business? What about the tens of thousands of employees that'd be out of their jobs? Have you no COMPASSION!?
B) Under the Clinton order of operations, all cars would still need gasoline. Just somewhat LESS gasoline. Meaning that the evil energy industry would still do exactly what they do now. With the Bush plan, some of the energy industry's more unpleasant (though currently necessary) operations will CEASE ENTIRELY, while STILL giving the industry time to restructure itself to avoid massive layoffs when the technology arrives.
So again, what is your problem?
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
The problem is that Bush canceled the Clinton/Gore plan with his. He could've kept the Clinton/Gore plan, then introduced fuel cells down the road ... instead, by completeing doing away with Clinton/Gore, he's effectively shown what he thinks of the enviornment: nothing.
quote:That statement made little or no sense.
Not surprising, since you never make any sense.
quote:Why in the WORLD would you want to put the energy industry out of business? What about the tens of thousands of employees that'd be out of their jobs? Have you no COMPASSION!?
Funny coming from a guy who supports the type of de-regulation that allowed the Enron collapse to happen.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
The problem is that Bush canceled the Clinton/Gore plan with his. He could've kept the Clinton/Gore plan, then introduced fuel cells down the road ... instead, by completeing doing away with Clinton/Gore, he's effectively shown what he thinks of the enviornment: nothing.
OK, let's do this again.
Clinton plan: lower emission cars are introduced ~2012, probably leading to somewhat lower polution rates; fuel cells aren't introduced until at least 2020, quite possibly later, depending on how long it takes to develop them.
Bush plan: fuel cells are introduced as soon as feasable, leading to major reduction in polution
Bush cut out an unnecessary, costly, time-consuming, minimaly effective middle step. If given the choice between getting fuel cells in, say, ten years, and slightly less polluting cars in twelve, I'll take the fuel cells. It's called logic.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:Bush plan: fuel cells are introduced as soon as feasable, leading to major reduction in polution
Nice try, Omega. Under Bush plans, fuel cells won't be introduced (at the earliest) for a period of time between one and a half and two decades. In other words, the same space of time. And in the meantime, Big Oil still gets to stuff its wallet.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
And that is different from the Clinton plan... how?
OK, so we've got two plans. The only differences appear to be what technology is implemented, and who implements the plans themselves. Who should be irrelevant, so we'll assume that it is. All other things being equal, the superior technology should be implemented. Thus, the more recent plan is superior.
Yet again I will ask, what is your problem with the change?
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:And that is different from the Clinton plan... how?
The Clinton plan would've increased gas mileage on vehicles in the meantime. That means we'd be buying LESS oil. This has already been gone over in clear detail.
quote:Yet again I will ask, what is your problem with the change?
That Bush jr. doesn't seem to want the Clinton/Gore plan to carry us over from where we are now to the fuel cells. So, basically, he bought Big Oil a lot of breathing room. Joy.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Pardon, but didn't you say that they would have gone into effect at the same time?
Of course, this is all irrelevant, because technological developments don't operate according to a timeclock...
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:Pardon, but didn't you say that they would have gone into effect at the same time?
You know, I sometimes think beating my head against a brick wall would be easier then having a conversation where Omega actually reads.
The fuel cells, YES.
But the Clinton/Gore plan called for cars which got better gas mileage WITHOUT those cells ... so what you would have had were automobiles requiring less gas until fuel cells came into useage.
?Comprende?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
The only LEV I've seen so far is a Rolls Canardly.
Rolls down one hill, Can 'ardly get up the next.
Of course, more efficient car engines won't affect the price of gas in the slightest, it'll just mean that the Oil Companies have longer before their supply becomes a problem... longer to lobby for increased protection, just what the Dems don't want.
If the cut of the "efficient" program by eight years and the redirection of funds leads to the fuel cell coming even a year earlier, It will be better in the long term for the environment than eight years of slowly 'phased in' higher efficiency.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:Of course, more efficient car engines won't affect the price of gas in the slightest, it'll just mean that the Oil Companies have longer before their supply becomes a problem... longer to lobby for increased protection, just what the Dems don't want.
Well, since our Republican president had no problem tossing the Clinton/Gore plan out, what do they need to lobby against?
quote:If the cut of the "efficient" program by eight years and the redirection of funds leads to the fuel cell coming even a year earlier, It will be better in the long term for the environment than eight years of slowly 'phased in' higher efficiency.
Apparently Clinton and Gore wanted to give Big Oil and its employees enough time to realize a big change was coming so they could all secure new jobs ...
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Well, since our Republican president had no problem tossing the Clinton/Gore plan out, what do they need to lobby against?
The Republican one, of course. They don't want change AT ALL. If they can get up to keep going back and forth from plan to plan, nothing will get done.
quote:Apparently Clinton and Gore wanted to give Big Oil and its employees enough time to realize a big change was coming so they could all secure new jobs ...
And as you've said before, the time frame hasn't changed. The elimination of the 'efficient' engine plan just gives them more time to stock up more funds before the hard times hit.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:And as you've said before, the time frame hasn't changed. The elimination of the 'efficient' engine plan just gives them more time to stock up more funds before the hard times hit.
Yeah, Rob, so, like has been said before, Bush bought Big Oil more time. You apparently don't disagree with that, yet we've just spent two full pages of Flare text argueing about it.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
It was proposed that we would have viable fusion power by 1998. but i think we're still a ways off. but we'll get it eventually. i'd like to be able to use tap water to power a small fusion generator in my house someday. instead of having to pay a water and power bill, it'd only be a water, all the power companies would have died out... heh heh heh
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Except, of course, the companies that built the fusion generators...
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I'm not up on American gasoline, but did you change over to unleaded petrol like Europe did?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Yes.
And fusion is only twenty years away at best, and has been for the past fifty years...
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
I messed up.
it should have said:
And as you've said before, the time frame hasn't changed. The elimination of the 'efficient' engine plan just gives them greater profits, an opportunity to stock up more funds before the hard times hit.
So while he did not buy them 'more time,' he did buy them 'greater profits.'
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:So while he did not buy them 'more time,' he did buy them 'greater profits.'
He bought them more time at the current rate of gas/mileage consumpution.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
My understanding of the difference was that the Clinton/Gore plan focused on developing newer and more decentralized power technologies, whereas the Bush plan emphasizes utilizing existing technologies and infrastructure more efficiently.
If I remember correctly, the Gore plan would encourage the automobile industry to further develop and advance fuel cell and other low-pollution / renewable energy technologies with a variety of tax incentives (in contrast to the tax penalties he'd proposed in his earlier book) for businesses engaged in research and production of this type. This would provide the incentive to encourage the maturing and installation of the infrastructure (including safety/legal considerations as well as the physical and corporate aspects of refueling stations, etc.) which would be necessary to implement real-world consumer adoption of these technologies. The language also seemed to focus on a more distributed / decentralized energy system (which I'm sure terrified the energy industry to no end) which could provide more reliable and plentiful power with fewer hand in the pot.
I haven't explored the Bush/Cheney (well, Cheney really) plan in too much depth, but it seems to pay lip service to the concept of renewable energies, without getting down to the industry hand-holding that will absolutely be necessary to make this happen. The focus seems to be largely on improving and expanding our current energy systems, with an emphasis on centralized power from more and better plants (be they the subsidized 'clean-coal', natural gas, or nuclear). I suspect that his motives are not entirely pure here. By removing the need to migrate to the new and more fuel efficient engines in the mean time, the automotive industry is saved the time, expense and effort to do more than token research for transitional powerplant production, and the oil industry need'nt worry about any dimishing demand. This can be viewed as being somewhat short-sighted, (and in my opinion it is), but on the other hand, these industries do have very real and legitimate concerns about the ways in which this new technology will effect their way of life. That cannot be ignored. Obviously it is easier to stick with the status quo, but adressing these issues now may turn out to be less expensive (and therefore more profitable) down the road. There are a lot of ancillary advantages beyond the purely financial: Less dependence on fossil fuels will mean increased isolation from the inherent instability of a global energy market in addition to bluer skies and cleaner rivers. I think that's something we could all agree is something we all want. It's just that it can't be a pie-in-the-sky idealism because industries, particularly the conservative industries of energy and automobile manufacturing do not work like that. They need to see very clearly how this is in their best interests, and how these advances will provide a sustainable advantage. I don't think that's an entirely unreasonable thing to ask.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)