Climate Change Leadership: The White House Policy We Want

Tue, 2008-06-24 09:38Jim Hoggan
Jim Hoggan's picture

Climate Change Leadership: The White House Policy We Want

“Oil is poisoning our climate and our geopolitics, and here is how we’re going to break our addiction: We’re going to set a floor price of $4.50 a gallon for gasoline and $100 a barrel for oil. And that floor price is going to trigger massive investments in renewable energy — particularly wind, solar panels and solar thermal. And we’re also going to go on a crash program to dramatically increase energy efficiency, to drive conservation to a whole new level and to build more nuclear power. And I want every Democrat and every Republican to join me in this endeavor.”

– An Imaginary U.S. President

Thomas Friedman of the New York Times got a little carried away recently dreaming about what true climate change leadership would look like in the White House.

In an opinion piece that should be required reading for environmentalists, other journalists and all politicians, he castigates the current administration for the “massive, fraudulent, pathetic excuse for an energy policy” currently being pushed by the Bush administration and suggests the above as a preferable alternative.

Hear, hear!

Comments

A $4.50/gallon and $100/barrel floor, meaning that if prices stay above those levels there will be no effect? Jim Hansen’s full-rebate carbon tax proposal is much better, especially since it doesn’t ignore coal in the short-term. Coal won’t go away fast enough if all we do is eliminate its subsidies while encouraging renewables.
For now, anyway, there’s just too much of a cheap supply of it. A rational energy policy has to put climate concerns first, and Friedman’s attempt at one has the wrong focus.

“Thomas Friedman of the New York Times got a little carried away recently …”

Uh, when is Friedman not carried away?

… dreaming …

Uh-huh. Keep dreaming.

“We’re going to set a floor price of $4.50 a gallon for gasoline and $100 a barrel for oil.”

So he’s dreaming of a centrally-planned economy, where the state sets prices of commodities. Gee, what could possibly go wrong with that? That kind of thinking has worked wonders for Venezuela and Zimbabwe!

“And we’re also going to go on a crash program to dramatically increase energy efficiency, to drive conservation to a whole new level.”

Shortly followed by bankruptcy and starvation. But then, what’s a centrally-planned economy without government rationing? The soup line forms to the right.

“I want every Democrat and every Republican to join me in this endeavor.”

Or else. As insane as Friedman’s last statement sounds, I suppose John McCain is giving new hope to Neo-Marxists everywhere.

“In an opinion piece that should be required reading for environmentalists, other journalists and all politicians”

Well, I suppose if said politicians expect any positions in the newly formed Ministry of Truth, or journalists seek future jobs writing Newspeak, they’d better toe Friedman’s line. There’s always the gulag for the deniers.

“There’s always the gulag for the deniers.”

The proof that rob’s full of garbage is that he’s still alive.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://frankbi.wordpress.com/ International Journal of Inactivism
“Al `Fat Al’ Gore [is fat]” – Harold Pierce

To come out of energy and water deficit and climate change hole our generation has dug there is only one magic word everyone has to spell: CONSERVATION
Not digging more with increased: coal, biofuel, fosil fuel or nuclear energy consumption. Please see www.sdrt.net

Has it ever occurred to Rob, ZOG, Harold Pierce, Paul S/G, et al. that oil is a non-renewable resource and that it will someday run out? If not, they ought to be re-educated from Kindergarten onwards.

And your point is?

Of course oil is a diminishing resource. Who the f**k every said otherwise?

If 10% of the wealth and effort being pissed against the wall to “prevent climate change” caused by imaginary human influence was directed towards useful R&D, we might make some progress towards long-term preservation of our energy-dependant civilization. Of course, humanity-hating warmists would fight any progressive developments every inch of the way, just as their equally ignorant Luddite kinfolk fought (and nearly destroyed) the nuclear energy industry 30 years ago.

Harold has stated crap like “We’ll be using fossil fuels forever” and “Fuels of Freedom.” Sounds like true ideological horses***.

are blind

Fern Mackenzie

The big policy needed is a carbon tax to price emissions of CO2 so high it will no longer be economic to emit at all. But that policy would only appeal to people who actually wanted the US to contribute to the international effort to stop global warming and obviously, these people are not in the position to push policy through Congress yet.

But a floor price for oil and gasoline is a good idea and it has a broader appeal. Why? If you were George Bush and you saw the oil price at $140 or more and it dawned on you that the way out was massive coal to liquids based on the colossal reserves of North America a floor price would suddenly make sense to you. The Saudi oil minister does say occasionally that if too much alternate production starts to come on stream they will try to put it all out of business by lowering their price. It costs them less than $5 a barrel to produce from their magnificent fields, some say less than $2. And they still have, even at this market price, extra capacity to ready to pump. It may be that this demand driven market can’t be controlled by them, but their oil Minister does show up to conferences to threaten things like this.

Massive coal to liquids investments will be risky given the tremendous reserves of conventional oil that still exist which basically have no value until they are sold. So a floor price for oil would tend to appeal to people who could care less about global warming who were tired of being held to ransom by foreign oil barons.

The floor price for oil would then allow any alternates presently unable to compete with a sheltered area to start to benefit from economies of scale.

Unfortunately there doesn’t seem to be much time for any leisurely steps like this.

Ignoring that most countries have nationalized oil industries, and that in the USA the oil industry functions as the federal government in drafting oil policy, effectively nationalizing the USA federal government…and ignoring the USA government won’t allow foreign takeovers of their private firms (China’s stae-backed oil company was denied access to Exxon in 2005 and went to Iran instead)…yes, I’d prefer Communism control over oil to the American capitalism model. Not for most other industries though. For example, gambling on sports is illegal in the USA. To buy liquor in Manitoba, you go to a Provincial Crown store. Cigarettes are regulated. Before oil obstructed science I would’ve been ambivalent, but not after. Energy R+D has been cut in half under big oil’s watch.

http://www.heart-watch-blog.com/

 
[x]

There are enough articles on the “myth of peak oil” floating around the Internet to fill a book; and there are enough books on the subject to fill a small library.  One of the common threads throughout these publications is their lack of credible sources, because not only is peak oil real, but we’re rapidly approaching that threshold. 

An example that is smacking the United...

read more