that Mary Lee linked to, sometime today I will know what you look like. LOL

It's slowwwwly downloading as I type.

Dial up...bah humbug. :D

Or should we just put our comments in here?

" A bipartisan "energy working group" of 28 lawmakers hopes to break the impasse this week by proposing a compromise that couples new offshore drilling with conservation and renewable energy programs.

Yet House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, says she won't allow a vote on a bill that includes new offshore oil drilling."

Is it possible to get the names on that committee, and some idea of the bill as it stands right now? What seems to be going on, as always, is probably the result of special interests and lobbying, but I'm sure we all know that.

It's up to our lawmakers to work this problem NOW, and be damned with their vacation or even their campaigning time.  

And for Speaker Pelosi to be stating outright, that she won't even allow any form of compromise is, IMHO, not in the least helpful. 

but that she won't allow a bill to the floor that contains new off shore drilling. I hope she sticks to her guns on that one.

T. Boone is right...we're not going to drill our way out of this mess.

I'm not completely opposed to off-shore drilling.  I'd like to see what the compromise from the committee of 28 is, prior to dismissing it out of hand.

which is pretty common across the board when it comes to off shore drilling and drilling in protected areas.

Offshore drilling is NOT the answer for either short term or long term.

This article at Politico is one of the best pieces I've seen on why it's WRONG. I've been using it to send letters to my congresspeeps.

Dear 44: Drilling only benefits Big Oil

~ snip ~

Expansion of offshore drilling into protected areas will worsen our oil addiction. It is akin to an alcoholic seeking treatment at a new saloon. Instead, we need to slash oil demand to cut our gasoline bills, strengthen our national security and reduce pollution. Only by investing in clean energy alternatives and boosting efficiency can we lessen our dangerous reliance on oil. Over time, these steps will lower the cost of energy and help protect the planet from global warming to boot.

First, let’s examine the claim that more drilling can lower gasoline prices. Between 1999 and 2007, permits for drilling in onshore and offshore public lands “increased by more than 361 percent, yet gasoline prices have also risen dramatically,” the House Natural Resources Committee reported in a new analysis. “There is simply no correlation between the two.”

Indeed, lifting the offshore drilling moratorium would not reduce oil prices for years, notes the United States Energy Information Administration. It found that “access to the Pacific, Atlantic and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030.”

What’s more, big oil companies have failed to develop their existing offshore leases. The Natural Resources Committee found that they produce oil or gas from only one-quarter of the 44 million acres of leases held in the western Gulf of Mexico. Before giving Big Oil access to our shining seas, they ought to develop what they already have.

Offshore oil drilling is dirty business. Despite contrary claims by McCain, the Coast Guard estimated that oil rigs hit by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita spilled more than 7 million gallons of oil into the Gulf. Rigs routinely discharge thousands of pounds of mercury, lead, benzene and other toxic chemicals into the water. ...

Cont...

Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.

for the compromise.  If there's any sense of fair play about this, what you just said here:

"What’s more, big oil companies have failed to develop their existing offshore leases. The Natural Resources Committee found that they produce oil or gas from only one-quarter of the 44 million acres of leases held in the western Gulf of Mexico. Before giving Big Oil access to our shining seas, they ought to develop what they already have."

will be inclusive.  

I'm also assuming that protected areas will remain protected.

Even though this is a huge problem that's been barreling down the track at us for decades, I don't think we're going to get anywhere in one giant leap.  Not the way the goons work.  

If we don't reach some kind of short term compromise with big oil (they really do hold all the cards on that one, all my money and lawyers are tied up in other projects right now; if anyone else out there has a couple billion and a gross of lawyers around, let me know, we can team up and form our own special interest - the one called We the People Remember Us?) we're going to get exactly nothing done.

But that's just my opinion.  My cynical opinion.  I really can't see any other way. 

Good article.

To me it makes no sense to say drilling to get more oil to use up is somehow going to make us less dependent on oil "eventually".

Eventually needs to start now, not later. And we need to keep our fingers off the ecosystem as though our survival is the one one that matters. We're all dependent on the other living creatures on this planet even if we don't like to admit it. Look at the problems the loss of something as "simple" as bee colonies can create. WE NEED EACH OTHER...each creature has its place and plays an important part in life on the big blue ball floating in space.

I think I'd rather have no bill than a bad bill. We've seen enough of those, "gotta get'm done" varieties...and they seem to end up a disaster every time.

I saw one in my garden the other day! One of those little brown honey bees! I was so excited. Maybe someone in the neighborhood has taken up bee keeping. It had been YEARS since I last saw one.

Honeybees! It's been just wasps and bumbles for awhile.

"Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants."

Gen. Omar Bradley

Those aren't bees.

They're just horseflies that have been genetically modified to resemble bees... to fool you into thinking everything is fine again.

It's called 'Operation Honey Fly/ Horse Bee', managed by the Pentagon.... Funded by taxpayer dollars. It's part of a plan to make you believe that Global Climate Change is all in your head. And you guys ate it up... Geez. :D

Warning: Humor; incoming

I had them last summer as well. I don't know which kind they are. I read that Kansas doesn't rely on importing bees for farming, so our bees weren't hit the way the ones that are trucked around were.

is coming to LA on AUG 5th for anyone in the area who wants to see him speak. The World Affairs Council is hosting.

=====================================================

A Plan to End America's Dependence on Foreign Oil

T. Boone Pickens

Chairman and CEO, BP Capitol

Tuesday, Aug 5,

7:30 p.m. dinner

Intercontinental Hotel

Members: $54

Guests of members: $64

General admission: $69

for reservations call (213) 628-2333

Multi-billionaire T. Boone Pickens founded Mesa petroleum in 1954 and it rapidly became one of the largest independent oil and energy companies in the world.

In recent years he has become increasingly outspoken about the need for change in the United States’ energy policies.

In July of this year he released The Pickens Plan, a strategy for reducing America’s dependence on oil through the use of alternative fuels. The Plan proposes that wind power provide 20 percent of the country’s energy needs and natural gas be used for cars. With this in mind Pickens’ has started work on the world’s largest wind farm, in Texas.

Let's not forget Mr. Pickens is a long time oilman and was the one who founded the Swift Boat liars, and welshed on his offer to pay $1 million to anyone who could disprove them.

I do NOT trust him.

http://www.yestodemocracy.com/

On one hand, the Swiftboat ads. On the other hand, a plan with some money behind it to invest in alternative energy.

Is it possible to be both good and bad at the same time?

I'm sure there is plenty in it for him, but do we discount his effort because he was a stupid fool in 2004?

"It takes two to speak the truth - one to speak and one to hear." - Henry David Thoreau

No comment on his credibility or not as I've not delved into him at this point. It was just in case anyone in the area was curious and wanted to see him. :)

It's just he's someone who's past history is such that if you shake hands with him, make sure you have your rings, wallet, and watch afterwards

http://www.yestodemocracy.com/

Ted Kennedy has been trying to shut down this CapeWind project for years. Do you trust him?

And Cape Wind has some of the more vocal - NIMBYs with money.

I do NOT agree with Sen. Kennedy on this issue. But then it's not my backyard. I still think he's being foolish though

http://www.yestodemocracy.com/

And I really think he is wrong about shutting down the CapeWind project. But I don't think he is all evil...

Thanks for adding that thought -- it makes me look at Mr. Pickens in a different light.

"It takes two to speak the truth - one to speak and one to hear." - Henry David Thoreau

He does have an interesting proposal. The construction of the wind plants is a step in the right direction.

I looked up some facts on the proposed Capewind offshore wind power project up here in Ma. The plant would (as advertised) produce about 1,491,384 mWhrs (Mega Watt Hours) of electrical power per year. That would (as advertised) be enough to supply power for 75% of Cape Cod and the Islands.

I ran a quick calculation on how much hydrogen it would produce. Assuming these base figures are accurate, it takes approximately 45kWhrs of electricity to produce an amount of hydrogen equivalent to 1 gallon of gasoline via electrolysis of water. Using the 1,491,384 mWhrs of power that the Capewind plant would produce, it would generate enough hydrogen to be the equivalent of 33,141,867 gallons of gasoline. We use around 142 billion gallons of gasoline a year in the U.S.

The thing to keep in mind is many of the GOP have been bought and paid for by the energy industries. Energy policy for the last 8 years has been set by two oilmen, and any gains we've made in energy conservation has been despite them.

And this has been a very obstructionist congress and senate, with the GOP doing their best to stall things.

First in California, and now in Texas, you're seeing the results of "deregulation" - sky high energy costs.

Increasing oil drilling is a canard. There's more unused oil leases than opening up drilling would release, there's very little unused drill capability, and the oil companies have not been investing their profits in increased capacity or infrastructure.

Hydroelectric is being affected by drought conditions, and wind farms are getting more and more flack from NIMBY groups. And we can't build the safer nuclear plants you can find in other parts of the world due to anti-nuclear groups in the US.

Biofuel has possibilities, but current production uses crop lands normally used for food. There needs to be an increase in technologies that can process waste biomass into fuel.

That's the problems I see.

http://www.yestodemocracy.com/

It seems that energy programs are always top-down. There isn't enough emphasis on bottom-up conservation.

For instance, if we can have little solar panels on calculators, then why not on other devices? My air conditioner pokes out into the hot sun all day. Why can't they put a solar panel on it to at least supplement the power? If we can have dynamo powered radios, why not lamps?

Also, you see so many small towns that are small enough to walk everywhere, but there are no sidewalks. It's not safe without sidewalks. In Europe, small towns are designed so that they are walkable. Why can't towns in the U.S. be rezoned to make them more walkable?

Europe also has incredible railroads. Why is there no motivation to upgrade Amtrak? Gas prices are so high, and airlines are so inconvenient. I think people would be attracted to high speed rail.

I guess the reason is that big energy companies don't stand to make a lot of money off of it, but surely somebody does.

Complete and total agreement from this small corner.

It almost feels like the energy and transportation conglomerate is trying to figure out a way that they can have their piece of the pie.  Not so willing to allow new investment, and there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of support out there for the little guy with a good idea.  Like Reg says - what is keeping the bottom up approach from working? 

Auto plants close, thousands of people put out of work.  Yet why no get some retro-fitting in there and produce low cost, hybrid vehicles?  The technology exists, doesn't it?

I'm just a dork when it comes to economics, but I can't for the life of me figure out why we haven't charged up our manufacturing base with production of wind and water mills, solar energy component production, eco-friendly building materials, re-working re-claimed wood, metal, plastics - the list is endless.  I guess the money to make it happen isn't.

I've often wondered at the death of our rail system.  What gives?  Why are there thousands of trucks on the road, when high speed rail to designated distribution centers would be so much better for everyone?

I'm saddened living in a city with crumbling infrastructure, and seeing dollars go hand over fist just to make stuff work the same old way, and no possibility to start over and create more energy and environmentally efficient systems (geo-thermal, water, wind, nuclear and solar) to replace what obviously needs to be replaced.

I spoke with a farmer in Indiana a couple of months ago.  Said she'd been trying to put a windmill on her property for years, but was consistently prevented from doing so by the electric provider.  This is the type of thing that holds us back.  Once again, special, big-money and power interests.  

One thing to remember is at the top of this food chain sits a person (or family) who has made a fortune over the years, and doesn't want to stop.  And they've got the money, they've got the power, they've got the lawyers.

I really don't know what we're supposed to do.  Collecting rain water seems pretty ridiculous, when the problems are so big, and the power mongers are so rich. 

Every month I read something or see something on TV about some new way of saving energy, or some way of building roads using recycled material, or some new alternative car. But then nothing ever comes of it. This has been going on as long as I can remember.

What's worse, the trend over the last several decades has been to locate places of business further and further away from where people live. I understand that people want quiet neighborhoods, but I don't think people want to burn gas just to get a bottle of soda that costs less than the gas.

Americans are leaving their cars in record numbers to try and find other ways to get around in the US. This is a really good thing IMHO, although revenue is down for maintaining the highway system. I know in my state of Kansas, we're having to look to a private co-op to build a powergrid here so we can sell wind, solar and other energy. It's cost prohibitive for the state to try and build one on our own. Obviously, the power generated will no doubt go elsewhere. I really would like to see people in Kansas have first dibs on the power generated. My electric bill has gone up about 33% per unit of electricity. They say it's because people are using less electricity and of course the shareholders want their money. I'm ready to go back to having basic services provided by government. At the very least, electric companies should find more ways to allow people to benefit from the sacrifices they are making to cut back on use of electricity, gas and such. One of my friends is installing solar panels on her house. I'm anxious to know how that's going to work for her. She said it will be 9 years before it has paid for itself.

9 years is a long time.

And something else you mentioned is where the catch 22 comes in.

Electric companies charging more per kilowatt hour because they're not selling as much as before, because people are trying to cut their bills by conserving energy.

Where does that maze lead for heavens sake?

I do think we were better off when there was at least regulation of these industries by the government. The way it is now, monopolies have a free hand to do what they want the way they want.

were supposed to take about 10 years to pay for themselves. They do help quite a bit in cutting useage, particularly in the winter, but with the rising prices, it's hard to know when they've paid for themselves. Looking at it that way, the solar panels are on par with the E-star windows and doors and at least she is generating her own energy. I'm waiting to see what glitches she has with hers.

that perspective. What you're saying makes good sense.

It's all expensive I guess. I hope things go well cause I have a feeling you may just follow suit if it's feasible...1 person at a time...1 community at a time. I think that's the only way it's going to really take hold. Or maybe I should say the best and most lasting way for it to take hold.

For me to do it, everybody would have to do it. A friend in Europe did a community wide solar panel "farm" on land they owned in Portugal and also put in their own reservoir. The government officials those decades ago thought they were nuts. Now they want to take it over from them and they won't sell. The have water and electricity and those living around them are having to do without. I'd like to see what happens with her house before I approach our community. Also, we have to have a powergrid installed in Kansas. I'd expect as a community we might have excess we could sell. It be really cool if we could find one of the energy companies to install it for us in exchange for our extra power, beyond what the homes here use.

on this issue. The bottom line is that Democrats cannot do anything without a two-thirds majority in Congress to override a Bush veto and Republicans cannot do anything unless Nancy Pelosi allows a vote on it and she will not allow a vote on drilling.

So we are at a stalemate where neither side will give in and where nothing can get done right now as this CNN transcript documents:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0807/24/sitroom.01.html

THE SITUATION ROOM

Massive Turnout for Barack Obama in Berlin; Obama's Afghan Victory Call: What the Critics are Saying; New Fight Over the War: McCain vs. Obama

Aired July 24, 2008 - 16:00 ET

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: "While Republicans want more oil exploration, Democrats say we already have a way to provide quick relief. They're advocating releasing oil from the country's strategic reserve. The stalemate has some saying that lawmakers would rather argue than find a real solution.

Let's go to CNN's Kate Bolduan. She's covering this story for us.

The bottom-line question, Kate, a lot of people are asking, is anything substantive likely to get done anytime soon by Congress?

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, that's a question many are asking right now. They're running out of time, as Congress is about to leave for their recess. And the partisan wrangling, the political fighting just seems to be getting more and more intense.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BOLDUAN (voice-over): Even before the votes were counted on the latest energy proposal, the partisan standoff was clear.

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), HOUSE SPEAKER: We're saying, Mr. President, free our oil. It's our oil. It belongs to American taxpayers.

REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R), MINORITY LEADER: This bill's a joke. Come on. This is not an energy bill. This is not going to produce any more American-made energy.

BOLDUAN: That bill, a Democratic plan to release oil from the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It failed. One more example of the deadlock over sky-high gas prices.

While there's no shortage of proposals, the main battle comes down to whether to allow new domestic drilling. Republicans say yes, Democratic leaders say no. The dispute has turned into competing press conferences, dueling poster boards and partisan jabs.

SEN. PETE DOMENICI (R), NEW MEXICO: Does it seem to you like it does to me that Harry Reid is either scared, chicken to have a vote, or he's decided that he's going to dictate to the United States Senate?

PELOSI: This call for drilling in areas that are protected is a hoax. It's an absolute hoax on the part of the Republicans.

BOLDUAN: There's about a week left before Congress leaves for the summer, but both sides see little political incentives to strike a deal. Why? Democrats and Republicans point to separate polls as proof they have the winning argument.

Republicans cite polls showing a majority of Americans are in favor of more drilling, Democrats cite polls indicating Americans blame the Bush administration and oil companies, not Congress, for high fuel prices.

STU ROTHENBERG, "THE ROTHENBERG POLITICAL REPORT": It's just a thematic argument over who's for or who's against energy, who's for lower prices, who's for higher prices. And both parties think they have an advantage on that argument.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BOLDUAN: And Wolf, it's an argument that both Democrats and Republicans say they are happy to take all the way to the fall elections.

BLITZER: Well, it looks like they will be taking those arguments to the elections..."

Welcome aboard, Sam, and I love the idea of the role you'll play. You're off to a great start.

Some thoughts on our energy problem:In the short term, we ought to do all we can in many areas. These might include:

• Drilling offshore in areas already leased. This is only a stopgap, with help beginning in 7-10 years if we start now. At this point we probably wish we had begun 7-10 years ago, if not in the 70s when we had our first energy crisis. This will only plug the dike, but we need all the help we can get.
• Oil should do what only oil can do, eliminating as fast as possible the use of fossil fuels (including coal and natural gas) to generate electricity. Save it for airplane fuel, trains, and such, possibly including big trucks.
• We should build vast wind power farms in the plains. They might even improve the landscape, LOL. This will require a major investment in improving the electrical grid and transmission of the generated electricity to power centers. Wind power may be the fastest boost in the effort to become energy-independent.
• We should prohibit the use of food products in the creation of alternative fuels. There's also a major land use project required to allocate land in some balance between energy and food production.
• I see nuclear as a 10-50 year stopgap. We should develop a cookie-cutter and safe design for nuclear power plants and stamp 30-50 of them in safe and remote areas where enough water is available. They can even be clustered in appropriate places. The cookie-cutter and cluster idea will facilitate interplant personnel transfers and fill-ins.
• Solar power depends on silicon. The last time I looked there was plenty of sand around. Wind, solar, and fuels from non-food sources (from the sea?) are the long-term answer along with technological breakthroughs we don't know about yet.
• As more and more electricity becomes available, transportation, especially in personal and family vehicles, should more and more run exclusively on electricity.

Musings from the foothills of the Rockies. Sam...you gonna make it to Denver for the convention? Would love to meet you.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!

Not only is there plenty of sand around, there are plenty of empty silicon factories in this country since we started importing circuit boards.

We should prohibit the use of food products in the creation of alternative fuels. There's also a major land use project required to allocate land in some balance between energy and food production.

Let's get Detroit to design cars that run on poppies and kill two birds with one stone. Replace the illegal drug trade with precious energy and still be the "ADM, supermarket to the world."

Like the idea...can just see the ad campaign, lol!

"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers

• Over a relatively short time, legislate out the use of plastic liquid containers in favor of recyclable containers such as glass.
• Keep the Strategic Petroleum Reserve a strategic reserve for emergencies or only for a national security crisis. 

These are things I've thought about before, but forgot them in my first post. Thanks, Kelly, for reminding me.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!

The extra weight of the glass for shipping might not offset the savings of using recyclable plastics for containers. Some of the quandaries that we have set for ourselves and need to answer...

"It takes two to speak the truth - one to speak and one to hear." - Henry David Thoreau

Aluminum is a good alternative to plastic and glass, not only because of its weight, but because it is the most efficient material to recycle. It takes less water and energy to recycle and it stands up to multiple recycling.

I specifically choose to drink my Coke from aluminum cans just for that reason!

"It takes two to speak the truth - one to speak and one to hear." - Henry David Thoreau

and if you hadn't phrased it exactly that way, I doubt I'd have asked.

What about tornadoes?? I don't know if there have been studies/experiments done of the effects a tornado would wreak on a wind farm. Visions of 100 foot long wind propeller blades ripping thru towns at 150 mph, might up the carnage somewhat. I don't even want to envision the cows, lol ("Twister" joke)

"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers

and hurricanes. I haven't heard that discussed either....

The National Geographic special on global warming said we can anticipate seeing Cat 6 hurricanes if the temperatures continue to rise as they have recently... Whatta mess!

Personally.... I think we need FOUR Presidents-- and FOUR VP's. Yep. At a time like this, unprecedented in our history really, with so many mounting complex problems to be resolved, climate change, the failing banks and the Great Depression Redux, a few wars, rendition, torture, terror, poverty, skyrocketing health care, third world education standards, staggering deficits and debt, China, India, loose nukes, energy crunch, record foreclosures, honey bees, rapid species extinction, drought, fires, flooding, are we having fun yet? and on and on ... I think it should be a Quadumvirate (made up word, I think-- Grammar Snob?) - they will all be needed.

Then if we need to impeach one... there would still be 3 left to run things during the hearings! Half Full!

Is it too late to go back to the original 8 Dem candidates and pick 3 more? :)

Warning... just kidding. Incoming Pies!

Crist - after reading that I'm ready to kill myself.

;-) Kelly

Yep - Hurricanes would also be brutal. However, now that you mention it, there's a wind farm going up the North Shore of Oahu, up by Turtle Bay. I wonder if they've had problems with it. I know the turbines were there before Iniki. Should ask my brother about it - he used to be asst. gm years back at Turtle Bay.

"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers

Good guess. From Encarta:

quad·rum·vi·rate [kwo drúmvərət]

(plural quad·rum·vi·rates)

noun

four people sharing power: a group of four people sharing power, especially forming a government

[Mid-18th century. < quadri-, after triumvirate]

Microsoft® Encarta® 2008. © 1993-2007 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

The Grammar Snob

from nowhere! LOL!

Well at least it exists-- so there's precedence!

And I'm sure that we Clarkies, known for our spirit of compromise and agreeability, will all be able to agree on which four of the original eight we would like to have "share the power" and "form the government".... Heh. ;)

That settles it then.

I am opting for a Quadrumvirate to govern in this country from here on. It's the only practical solution for the mess we're in.

Imagine... four First Ladies! A 4-way State of the Union Address. They would all have to share Air Force One however with fuel prices and all.

The turbines are shut off at high wind speeds and would survive weaker tornadoes (which would be the majority). They would be destroyed by stronger tornadoes, but keep in mind that the coverage track of a strong tornado is usually not more than a few hundred yards wide and a few miles long...compare that to wind farm areas in Texas which are already 50 miles across.

Here is one of my favorite tornado vids:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2veLsNZrlSw&feature=related

Tornadoes are such random things and are limited in scope geographically. The house across the street can be destroyed while the house next door is untouched. Plus the poles and turbins present a small surface or "sail" area, unlike the side of a building. The risk of widespread damage from a loose turbine is rather small, I think.

Regarding hurricanes, I don't think that coastal areas, often heavily populated, are good candidates for wind farms.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!

upside to this particular bout of high energy costs - if it becomes economically painful enough for the majority of consumers, nationally, rather than in just those areas where the amount of time spent traveling is excessive, then the likelihood goes up considerably of some real changes happening in our national thinking/policy/funding/R & D/production and utilization of other forms of energy.

So far - we really haven't had a national outcry. I have friends in England who think we're all a bunch of whiners - gas there is nearly double what it is here, and has been since some time before our current oil crunch. There are, still, far too many consumers who either a) think they can't do anything about this,so no point in getting too worked up about it; b) think oil will go back down to $50-$60 per barrel sooner rather than later (and that's a possibility, though I doubt it will go back down that far unless the demand drops significantly); c) don't know there's anything they can do to offset this personally, locally or nationally; and d) (this is the most difficult one)see very little of the cost of oil as effecting them,personally. - Let me explain what I mean by this last one: There are a number of people out there - in cities/towns/the boondocks/wherever, who think of the cost of oil as really only personally effecting the finances of those with cars, or those who have to travel a lot, or those in the North with high heating bills, and such. While they may understand that the cost of food will also go up because of the transportation costs - they may not have thought out what that amount is in real dollars and cents for them. An example being a head of lettuce costing $1, for instance, and rising to $1.49. Ok - but that person might say, "...ok - so I'm out an extra 49 cents, so what, I'll live..." But the cost of milk also went up, and bread, and eggs,etc. and you all already know this. So this person's food bill for a week went up ten bucks, but they forget they have to multiply that by 4.333 weeks a month. Now they've just lost $43.33 a month and didn't do anything different. For a great number of people - that $43 is the difference between paying all the bills each month, and having to decide which one not to pay that month. The moment you have to start choosing which bills to pay and which ones not to pay, is when people ending up losing everything and it can snowball frighteningly fast.

There's another cost many people don't factor in when oil prices rise - plastics. Everything made of plastic also goes up, as a petroleum-based product. Trash bags, soda bottles, every plastic bottle on every shelf that holds anything we buy, dry cleaning costs go up (the plastic used to cover the cleaned clothing), the plastics wrapped around produce packaging, breads, cookies, cakes, candy, sunglass frames, tools, auto parts, electronics housings, cds/dvds, games, book jackets, you name it. It all goes up when oil goes up. It may not all go up directly to the consumer, but it goes up somewhere along the line.

Since someone/some group decided a while back, that it's not in our long-term economic/political/national security interests to use our own oil reserves anytime soon...we are going to have to find ways to not only preserve those reserves, but to motivate our own citizenry to want to use other forms of fuel. Part of that motivation will have to be in reducing the fears that new forms of energy will cost them more initially (remember how slow people were to use anything made from recycled products, because they cost so much more than the non-recycled ones?), until wide-spread adoption happens.

Ah...marketing!

And that really is an enormous part of the problem, sad to say. It isn't that the government doesn't know how to make this happen, they do. Implementing it, however, is going to be a bitch! The technology is all there - from wind farms, to solar power, hydrogen, thermo-electric, hydro-electric, to magnetically-driven super trains, etc. But getting the infrastructure - which is already poor in many places - converted over will take some serious doing.

There may be no better, or easier, time to 'sell' both the American public, and the political systems, on this change-over than right now - think of the jobs it will create, the technologies that will be refined (as well as discovered) while we implement new systems, the security holes we'll find we didn't realize existed (or forgot existed) in our infrastructures and power grids, the expertise we can develop while we refit our own country that we can then export to other countries, the educational draw such advances will create...and the list goes on.

If we can get off our national asses, and get this moving, everyone benefits; environmentally, educationally, economically, national security, etc.;

;-) Kelly

"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers

A bill was passed in the Hr. Another, S3185, is sitting in the ag committee in the Senate. I've contacted committee and my senators to encourage them to get it out for a vote. Not that this is a cure-all, but it would address a real problem.
Aside from that, obviously we need to move aggressively to alternatives to carbon-based--I hear it about the need to get rid of all the plastic, as well as saving fuel other ways. I love solar, wind, tidal--and biodiesel from throwaway used grease is a possibiliy. Also, based on info from a dear friend who is a scientist I greatly respect, I think nuclear is a good idea as well.
Welcome aboard, Sam!!
The General gets it right.
Competence--What a concept!

"Bush is invoking the specter of another WMD: wells of mass destruction. "

thoughts...They need to get something passed soon, but legislation should not allow for new drilling leases, on or offshore. I believe the Republicans are using the same old politics of fear that has overshadowed our government throughout the Bush administration. The Democrats need to stand strong in the face of Republicans' charges of blocking a full and open process.

The Truth About America’s Energy:
Big Oil Stockpiles Supplies and Pockets Profits
A Special Report by the Committee on Natural Resources
Majority Staff June 2008

short excerpt from the report:

[...] Increased Domestic Drilling Activity Has Not Led To Lower Gasoline Prices

Since the 1990s, the federal government has consistently encouraged
the development of its oil and gas resources and the amount of drilling on federal lands has steadily increased during this time. The number of drilling permits has exploded in recent years, going from 3,802 five years ago to 7,561 in 2007.

Between 1999 and 2007, the number of drilling permits issued for
development of public lands increased by more than 361%, yetgasoline prices have also risen dramatically (Figure 1) contradicting the argument that more drilling means lower gasoline prices. There is simply no correlation between the two.

Energy Companies Not Using Federal Lands Already Open to Energy Development

Even if increased domestic drilling activity could affect the price of
gasoline, there is yet no justification to open additional federal lands because oil and gas companies have shown that they cannot keep pace with the rate of drilling permits that the federal government is handing out.[...]

more:
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:HZkswSMrdD0J:courtney.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Natural%2520Resources%2520energy%2520report.pdf+Inventory+of+Onshore+Federal+Oil+and+Natural+Gas+Resources+and+Restrictions+to+their+Development,&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us&client=safari

I'm with Nancy Pelosi on this one, Bush needs to release oil from the national reserve to alleviate the pain at the pump for the American consumer, even if it's only temporary relief.

For the big picture, I also agree with oil baron, Boone Pickens: "we can't drill our way out of this one.". ..who ever expected to see the day they would agree with Boone Pickens?

...alternatives are imperative.

Rich Legacy & Great Potential of Cannabis Hemp:

http://cannabistv.wordpress.com/2008/05/16/industrial-hemp-in-south-dakota/

Unfortunately, alternative energy has been so long neglected by our government that it isn't likely there will be relief nearly soon enough to help the average desperate consumer.

Congress (Reid) needs to pass legislation, now without allowing the Republicans to amend it to pieces.

one of those good ideas with no real downside, as far as I know--except the cowardice of our politicos.
The General gets it right.
Competence--What a concept!

Residential Wind Turbines

http://www.awea.org/faq/rsdntqa.html

Cost for purchase/installation is less than $20K. In return, supply most of electricity needs and perhaps even sell excess at times back to the power grid (and use that money to purchase electricity when wind not blowing sufficiently)

Perhaps in the future, have electric cars that can be plugged into the wind-generated power grid (which might be the electricity generated on-site).

One advantage of individual wind turbines would be that there would be little energy loss involved with transmitting the energy from point A to point B.

Seems like the $20K invested makes a lot more sense than paying an extra $10K for some hybrid car that will be headed to the junk heap in less than 10 years.

Something that I'm currently looking at since I've got a 1+ acre lot outside the city. Finance that with a home improvement loan and the energy savings may very well cover the monthly payments with some left over. Throw in some energy tax credits and it might be a very good deal.

http://www.sre3.com/viewCampaign.do?campaignId=61&gclid=CIv-u6Ww5ZQCFQ4RnQod7zn9Rw

I had thought about incorporating that very idea in the solar part of my plan. In fact, I thought about making a whole bullet out of aesthetics, and the idea of solar was to make the solar panels integral to roofs rather than mounting protruding panels on top of existing roofs.

Furthermore, since you're worried about high winds, the integral idea instead of protruberances would preclude having the panels blown away.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!

I got back to the US yesterday but there's plenty of ideas spinning around my head after the trip. Solar power is one of them.

Both Dubai and Jordan are doing some interesting things with solar power. In Dubai the parking meters, metro card dispensers, street lights and air conditioned bus stops are all solar powered. Of course Dubai gets plenty of sun! But this could be an opportunity of a couple of fronts for us. With all the sun in Dubai solar power is effective even if its not as efficient as we might like it to be, or need it to be in many areas of the US. But both Dubai and Jordan are working to make it more efficient. We need to tap into that and let them know that we want to hear about the progress they're making and as efficiency improves borrow a few ideas from them. Both Jordan and Dubai are in a better position to get things out into the field and learn from practical experience than we are so lets give them credit for moving ahead on this. And if we expressed an interest that would be at least a small step towards improving our arrogant image.  

Barry
Are you safer today than you were seven years ago?^©

Solar might not be as effective here where I live as it is in the Southwest, but does that mean it shouldn't be put to work in the Southwest?

I think we need to keep in mind that what works well for one region may not work for another - oil is universal and works well for us all. But the replacements for oil/gas/coal are going to have to be different in the different areas of the US.

"It takes two to speak the truth - one to speak and one to hear." - Henry David Thoreau

I think that we're saying about the same thing. Right now solar won't work in New Jersey or Pennsylvania the way it will in the US Southwest or Dubai but that my not be the case forever. As places like Dubai and Jordan put solar energy out on the street, in real not theoretical situations, they'll learn a lot. In climates like that solar is easily at or beyond the break even point now but with experience it will get better. Dubai can put projects out there now and come out ahead but as they improve it we may want to take a look at what they learn. Maybe they'll reach the point where the projects will work in New Jersey.

Despite its reputation Dubai is also not limiting things to multi-billion dollar projects.  Solar powered street lights won't replace the power grid but they do make a difference. Big solar farms that would power much of the US are an interesting idea but there's no reason to only look at these expensive projects. Small projects, each making a small contribution, may get us where we need to go a lot faster.

Barry
Are you safer today than you were seven years ago?^©

The parking pass meters, streetcar ticket dispensers, and some lighting here in beautiful rainy Seattle are also solar in design. If it can work in Settle, it should be able to work in less sunny enviroments than Dubai

http://www.yestodemocracy.com/

I think it's a brilliant idea. Do you have links to material on the technologies you are involved with?

Hi! I'm interested, specifically in regards to the Survival Series project we're launching on CCN and how it might relate to survival in the Post Bushian Era.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16166#comment-317901

See the above comment and the links within for more, in case you missed the explanation earlier.

Let me know if you think it might fit in to the Series, you can email me via CCN. Thanks!