Edwards won Move-On poll because he DESERVED to win..

[ddeclue]

Bio fuels ARE the answer to transportation fuel problems unless we all just want to stay home and walk everywhere.

Bio fuels have long worked in Brazil for upwards of 30 years. There is no reason they can't work here too.

E85 / Flex bio-fuel hybrids are the first step
Methanol Fuel cell is the next step
Hydrogen Fuel cell is the step after that

Doug D.
Bachelor of Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Tech
Orlando, FL

[brentspeak]

1. Go Edwards!

Ok, I'm revealing my bias here. ;)

[jaksavage]

2. Good ideas but

reducing consumption could save us 20% a year.
now.

ethynol is a corporate giveaway.

remove old cars from the roads
raise the fuel price with taxes to reduce reckless consumption,
expand mass transit
encourage conservation
give this big fat society a mission.

[ddeclue]

12. REALITY CHECK...

reducing consumption could save us 20% a year.
now.

REALITY: You aren't going to simply reduce consumption by rationing supplies of gasoline - the American taxpayer is NOT with you on this and there would be a political backlash against the Democrats to force this on the public when the public isn't willing to change. You must educate people and allow them time to change their habits and allow society time to change how communities are structured. Currently our whole society is designed around the automobile and there is simply no way in 90% of this country to practically go from work to home via public transit.

ethynol is a corporate giveaway.

REALITY: First it is "ethanol" not "ethynol" and no it is not a corporate giveaway. It is the way to break the oil companies stranglehold on energy and OPEC's stranglehold on oil and force competition and innovation in a capitalistic marketplace.

remove old cars from the roads

REALITY: You can't have my cars - certainly not if you aren't willing to pay me a lot for them. Far more than gun nuts love their guns, Americans are in love with their automobiles and you'll have to pry the steering wheel from their "cold dead hands" to paraphrase Chuck Heston. People will not give up on perfectly fine working automobiles simply because you want to take them away from them. A carrot is much better than a stick so offer them tax incentives to trade-in. Old cars will eventually make it off the roads as cars get wrecked and worn out.

raise the fuel price with taxes to reduce reckless consumption,

REALITY: VOTER BACKLASH! Voters are already pissed about high gas prices - raising taxes will make them vote Republican and good luck with any kind of energy program then. Find alternative carbon-neutral fuels - don't raise taxes.

expand mass transit

REALITY: In most of the country mass transit is all but useless because of how we've allowed suburban sprawl to replace urban centers. There simply is no practical way most people can live a life and hold down a job on mass transit. So NO the answer truly isn't mass transit for most of us but more efficient, less polluting cars.

encourage conservation

THIS CAN BE DONE.

give this big fat society a mission.

REALITY: Most Americans would be offended at this statement as they just try to make ends meet and hold down a job, pay the rent, pay for their healthcare, keep the lights on, take care of their kids and/or their parents, and plan for their kids college and their own retirements. They HAVE a mission already - it's called "surviving day to day".

If you want change on the environment you are going to have to do it with carrots, not sticks - you are going to have to do it by finding alternative less polluting fuels and building more efficient cars so that the voter WANTS to make the change. If you try to beat them over the head with your tax sticks and your confiscating the cars stick, etc. you are going to fail utterly because the voters will fire you.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[jaksavage]

27. Seperate reality

I didn't say ration gas, I inferred that our consumption of fuel could be reduced by 20% fairly easily. We are incredibly wasteful, no?

Ethanol, from corn, IS a corporate giveaway.

I don't want your cars, I want old polluting cars, off the road.

Our consumption hasn't changed with the $3.00+ prices so, maybe we aren't so pissed?

The taxes collected will go for car replacement assistance, and lower income families would be exempt from the extra tax, as would commercial. Also we could fund community service announcments , lots of them.

Me thinks you went off on a rant w/o reading my words completly.
But I am happy to defend my ideas.
G'day

[TheFarseer]

17. reducing consumption is the best answer right now

given the feasible options immediately available to us. Raising CAFE is a must. A higher gas tax is not a bad idea. I think we should try to combat urban sprawl. I disagree that Ethanol is a corporate giveaway. We are only starting out in Ethanol (I hope). In Brazil they have much more efficient sugar cane ethanol. We must research ethanol to make it more efficient. I am certain this can be done based on everything I have read.

[welshTerrier2]

18. a higher gas tax is regressive

the goal is great but the implementation is terrible ... what do we tell those who can no longer afford to commute to work or drive their children to school?

i'd rather explore other methods to reduce the amount of gasoline we burn.

[TheFarseer]

19. I don't completely disagree with that

and God knows I don't want to pay anymore for gas, but you might encourage people to carpool, take the bus, bike, walk, move closer to work, take a lunch to work instead of driving all over for lunch or God knows what else and they'll end up saving money.

I think people are putting too much emphasis on a small tax on gas, when the real culprit is this refinery farce we keep getting thrown in our faces. People in Nebraska were pissing themselves over a 2 cent raise in the gas tax (which was vetoed) and didn't seem to give a darn when gas jumped 32 cents in a single day on Tuesday.

[welshTerrier2]

21. yeah, 2 cents wouldn't be much of an issue

in Massachusetts, where I live, there is no sales tax on food (except prepared food) and no tax on clothing. everything else is taxed at 5%. I think that "necessities" should not be taxed.

When it comes to gasoline, while I wish it weren't the case, I'm afraid for many it's become something of a necessity. I love the idea of carpooling and mass transit and encouraging bicycle use and even requiring employers to allow some employees to work from home. But, for some, commuting by car is a necessity and I don't think it's right to burden the poor with additional taxes on gasoline (i mean way more than 2 cents a gallon).

Some want to let prices rise to cut down on auto use (the "free" market couldn't be more expensive) and some want to tack another 50 cents or a dollar a gallon on to the price of gas via added gas taxes. Both would likely reduce auto use; neither is fair to those who can't afford it. I think we've come to the point with CO2 emissions that we have to look at severe rationing of gasoline and mandatory controls on employers to reduce pollution from commuting.

The Union of Concerned Scientists released a very, very dark report today that essentially said we need to rapidly reduce our CO2 output by 80% if we are to ward off the very worst impact from global warming. My take is that we should aggressively work towards that 80% reduction in every aspect of our society until we are able to take advantage of new technology or alternative fuels. This business of reducing oil consumption by only 2.5% by 2020, which I believe will be the impact of the changes proposed in the Democrats' latest Energy Bill, is tragically inadequate. The candidate supporters quickly point out the political practicalities; the tragedy is that they may be right. If they are, what their real message is, intended or otherwise, is that our political system is so defective that it is unable to respond adequately to a life threatening crisis.

I'd like those with a platform to at least start telling the people the truth. Maybe they can't win. Maybe we couldn't pass the legislation we need. Leadership demands they at least start putting out the message. Maybe when enough people have heard it, change will become possible. The truth is, there is no "practical" alternative.

[TheFarseer]

24. I do wish we had a subway system in Omaha

like they have in Boston. I would definitely take that. I have thought about the bus, but it's so damn inconvenient and my commute is only 10-15 minutes anyway. Alot of people I work with drive over an hour in big trucks or SUVs.

I think you touched on the main problem with this and with alot of issues - if you tell the people anything they don't want to hear, you will have a hard time getting elected. Calling for energy conservation or a real plan with real details where people have to sacrifice something for a balanced budget will send your campaign into the toilet.

I've never thought that raising the gas tax should be the centerpiece of an energy plan by any means, but I feel it could be a double edged sword - sure it will hurt some people, but it could also change people's habits and drive down demand which will help the overall situation in the long run and the money raised could be used to fund research on alternative fuels. Of course, raising CAFE is far more important to conservation.

[welshTerrier2]

25. consider this math

i've posted threads on this before. I'm no scientist and certainly could be wrong about this but:

i've read that every 3 mpg increase in CAFE saves 1 million barrels of oil per day. the Dems Energy Bill calls for an increase by 2020 from the current 26 mpg to 35 mpg. The increase of 9 mpg should save about 3 million barrels per day.

the Energy Bill also called for getting 15% of our energy from non-CO2 producing alternative energy sources. Current usage in the US is 20 million gallons per day but is expected to increase to 26 million by 2020. So, after reducing the 26 million down to 23 million as a result of CAFE improvements, the 15% would be applied to a base of 23 million. This would yield a reduction of an additional 3.5 million barrels per day making our 2020 daily consumption around 19.5 million barrels per day. We're currently at 20 million. That's a pathetic reduction from our current usage of only 2.5% and we don't fully realize that reduction for another 13 years. It's just not going to save us from the full horror of global warming. You might call the current proposals a drop in the barrel.

I think we need to wake up more people to 1. the risks we face and 2. the reality that even well meaning politicians are not proposing adequate solutions. Doing what we're doing now or even making piddly, politically possible progress, is really not an option we can live with. If we fail, we're doomed. There is no "moderate" solution; radical changes are needed. People get mad when I call for mandatory reductions in auto use. I'm a "tyrannical authoritarian." Let's hope I'm also dead wrong.

[welshTerrier2]

3. what does Edwards say about rationing and conservation?

if we don't make immediate and severe reductions in our current energy-intensive lifestyles, all this alternative fuels business will be far too little far too late.

has Edwards addressed the conservation issue? how does he propose to reduce auto use? has he called for building a real mass transit system? these aren't criticisms; they're questions.

[ddeclue]

7. Yes - he has asked people to conserve and recycle...

that's what he is (at least partially) referring to when he says "it's about time Americans acted patriotic about something other than war".

Doug D.

[welshTerrier2]

8. that's pretty vague

The Union of Concerned Scientists just released a report compiled by more than 50 climate scientists that said with need to urgently reduce our creation of CO2 gases by 80%.

Suppose I suggested reducing auto use by 80% until alternative, i.e. non-carbon producing, technologies were available.

Would Edwards support that? Saying his position is that we should be patriotic about something other than war, a statement I agree with and like very much, is not leadership on the conservation issue. If he's serious about leading and calling for the painful choices that really aren't choices at all, he needs to offer something far more specific.

[ddeclue]

10. Edwards has called for a rise in CAFE standards to 36MPG

and has called on people to conserve but clearly NO candidate is seriously advocating reducing automotive use by 80% nor could it possibly happen in anything resembling the near future without total disruption of the world economy.

Politics is the art of the possible and the art of the compromise.

We can only do what we can do - 80% is not a reasonable goal and if you make the perfect the enemy of the good or the better you will not achieve it regardless of how urgent it might be. There will be a backlash against draconian measures and you will endup worse off not better because Edwards or any other Democrat who attempted to do so would be labelled a loony leftwing tree hugger.

All in all Edwards plan to raise CAFE standards, invest in biofuels and energy research, and ask Americans to conserve and recycle is the best balanced, most practical and most likely to be implemented plan - which is why it won..

Asking people to make small changes in their lives is what we CAN do so let's do that and work for better options as they present themselves.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[welshTerrier2]

11. the Dems Energy Bill called for 35mpg

just to be clear, my intent is NOT to single out Edwards in my comments about conservation.

the problem with most of the proposals we're seeing, including what you've told me about Edwards', is that they are tragically inadequate. that perfect is the enemy of the good stuff is all well and good. it's also going to put our coastal cities underwater and cause severe hardships for the entire planet. what we need is leadership. we have no time for palatable political programs that won't alienate voters.

the Dems Energy bill called for CAFE increases to 35 mpg by 2020 and also that we get 15% of our energy from renewable fuels by 2020. Given the projected increases in energy use by 2020, the above programs will result in a planet threatening reduction of 2.5% by that year. That's pathetic. It really can't be "what the politics will bear" anymore. Global warming doesn't care about what's pragmatic or perfect or the enemy of the good or anything else; it just does what it does.

One of the reasons candidates can't propose such draconian measures is because no groundwork has been laid for those measures. Real leaders would be busy telling us what we need to hear. Just some food for thought. By the way, 80% auto use reduction is probably unachievable today but it damned well should be a goal. One way to achieve it would be to build real mass transit. Maybe we should be less busy building star wars weapons and build something that might actually allow us to save ourselves. How's that for doing something patriotic that isn't military?

[ddeclue]

13. Well NO - what is tragically inadequate is a policy which CANNOT be passed.

You can dream all you want but until there is a political will behind it, your 80% plans mean NOTHING because you aren't an emperor and you have to get the consent of the voters FIRST.

Real leaders try to do what CAN BE DONE - Real leaders deal in REALITY not a fantasy world where their ideas have no political support from the voters. So it really has to be "what politics will bear" because you can have a 2.5% reduction or a bunch of Republicans who will go the opposite direction and give us a 5% increase. You can't have what you can't have - sorry but that's the REAL world of politics.

If our cities end up underwater, then as that happens, physical reality will change political reality but it will take that before enough people believe in the harsh consequences of G.W. for there to be a political change.

You can't really build enough mass transit to solve the problem in most places because they are designed specifically to the automobile and no other means of transit would work. It's a matter of ZONING laws and real estate development as much as anything else. I've lived in a lot of big cities and there really is no place I know of outside of NYC that has a truly adequate transit system and that is because NYC is such a dense vertical city.

Finally, I would also say that no one has pointed out that we can actually remove carbon from the atmosphere if we were willing to build nuke plants to the same level they do in Japan, France, Germany and elsewhere in the world. We generate only 20% of our electricity from nuclear power while in these countries it is upwards of 75%. Instead of taking people's cars off the road and crushing them at gunpoint as you would have us do, let's take coal fired power plants off the grid and replace them with nukes which could be done relatively quickly. Indeed you could actually electrochemically strip the carbon from carbon dioxide using nuclear generated electricity and not only not make more via coal but actually physically remove it from the air (a.k.a. "terraforming").

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[welshTerrier2]

15. "physical reality will change political reality"

and you call this "leadership"? wouldn't it be better to have visionary leaders awaken us to the problems we face and build support for the changes we need BEFORE the "physical reality" destroys our society?

and as for nuclear, what is Edwards' position on making nuclear power a key part of our energy future?

[penguin7]

4. I hope bio fuels are the answer

But isn't Brazil using sugar(food) to make energy. My understanding of this issue is that bio fuels present a significant problem. They require the very important, limited resource of land. And further we grow our food on land.

In the case of corn we fertilize the land with oil derivatives, and there is a debate whether corn brings a net surplus of energy. Certainly we need to research bio fuels, but I am not so sure that the science is there yet to confirm the viability of Bio fuels.

Edwards did not discuss the problems of bio fuels. Also, the idea that bio fuels would enrich America and Africa because of their land is just plain nutty. It was equally simplistic and naive to suggest that alternative energies would cause the price of oil to plummet as he suggested.

[jsamuel]

6. sounds like you disagree with him on a single specific part of his plan

which is fine, but that doesn't mean that for most people, his plan was the best when all parts are put together. I have some questions about biofuels myself. For one thing, we export way more food than we consume, but I would like to see more on the issue.

[ddeclue]

9. Come on now...sugar really isn't "food"...it's at best junk food..

and we grow quite a lot of sugar in Florida, Louisiana and Hawaii just like they do in Brazil and there is no doubt that sugar is net energy positive (as Brazil has shown). Indeed we need to consume a lot less sugar as food in our country so there may be a hidden health benefit to bio-fuels. For that matter high fructose corn syrup (corn sweetner) is also bad for us and fattening us up to so if the price of it goes up, it's probably a net positive for us since it's usage as a food product will go down proportionate to the price rise.

Moreover you can make methanol (a more complex alchohol molecule sometimes called "wood" alchohol) from any cellulose based plant and burn it or run it in a methanol fuel cell just like ethanol. This could be developed from anything from hybridized loblolly pines to cotton plants to Bush's famous "switchgrass".

It's not nutty to say that alternative energy sources would cause the price to plummet because we have no control over the supply of oil when over 60% of it comes from overseas and production is controlled by a monopolistic cartel that forces the prices to remain high.

You can:

a) Adopt the Bush/Neocon approach of attacking oil rich countries and stealing their oil at gunpoint -which is both immoral/illegal and impractical/ineffective as the Iraq War has shown us.

b) Find alternative energy sources such as bio-fuels that are renewable, more carbon neutral and homegrown which is the Al Gore, John Kerry and John Edwards approach.

c) Adopt the Obama approach of pushing more coal usage which while plentiful in the U.S. is certainly not carbon neutral or renewable.

Edwards is quite accurate in that land to grow bio-fuels then becomes the keystone commodity which means that Africa, the Americas, and Austrailia become primary growing areas for the bio-materials required and thus the land will become more valuable and it will provide a means of income in these areas where farming previously was not profitable.

[jsamuel]

23. Gore seems to support biofuels, we just need to be careful about it

http://www.politicalcortex.com/story/2007/5/15/215113/163

[Zodiak]

5. As a populist, this is my assessment:

Edwards is the perfect blend of strategy and idealism. He brings voice to the common American and he has a real shot at winning the nomination and denying the corporate wing of the party another claim to exceutive leadership.

He deserved to win.

And no, I am not an Edwards supporter...not at this time, at least.

[1932]

20. That's how I see it too.

[illinoisprogressive]

14. Edwards is my second choice and I think it great he won. He needs some good news.

[bread_and_roses]

16. Edwards is touting bio fuels because they are an economic boon to the agri-states: ie, it's about

the votes.

To make life easy, I'll quote a summary article on the problems with bio-fuel:

http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/56047/

The inconvenient truth is that ethanol is bad for taxpayers, bad for air quality, bad for people who like to eat, and it will have no real effect on America's overall energy mix...

...the subsidies. Making ethanol from corn borders on fiscal insanity. It uses taxpayer money to make subsidized motor fuel from the single most subsidized crop in America. Between 1995 and 2005, federal corn subsidies totaled $51.2 billion.

...But the ethanol lobby isn't satisfied with the subsidies paid out to grow the grain. They are also getting huge subsidies to turn that grain into fuel.

The author goes on to note that even if the entire corn crop of the US were turned into ethanol, it would only supply about 6% of our energy "needs." As for cellulosic ethanol:

Alas, cellulosic ethanol is like the tooth fairy, an entity that many people believe in, but no one ever sees. Despite years of hype, there is no significant production of cellulosic ethanol, except in very small, non-commercial distilleries. Maybe that's a good thing, because the more ethanol that's burned in American automobiles, the worse the air quality gets--a fact that leads to the third problem.

The air quality information is very interesting and disturbing - it's something I wasn't aware of re: ethanol.

Some above are making light of the food price increase, which is examined in this article, but it is no laughing matter for poor and low income people in this Country, not to mention how it might impact food supplies and prices around the globe.

And this particular article doesn't even mention the use of fertilizers and pesticides and their environmental impact.

But ethanol is very popular in Iowa.

Now, I like John Edwards best of the current lot, but he too has to win votes in Iowa, not to mention pay his dues to our Corporate Masters.

[jsamuel]

22. Even Gore is for Biofuels, he just wants us to be careful about it

http://www.politicalcortex.com/story/2007/5/15/215113/163

[Bongo Prophet]

26. Yes, we need to be strategic about the transition

Gore's remarks about food prices and clearing forests are to be heeded, and we should be careful about the agribusiness angle (ADM, et al) gaming the system.

The smart grid infrastructure that allows for distributed micro-generation will be key to a whole range of energy choices to be incorporated. This would allow to feed energy back into the grid at a fair price if we get the right legislation. Then individuals, collectives, etc could invest in whatever solution works best for any given environment - wind, PV, micro-hydro, etc. Even plugging in your electric car to feed back from battery.

There are really great developments in enzyme-to-ethanol from non-food crops on marginal land, new solarPV production techniques and materials. Distributed power is a national security plus as well, and should be sold as such.

With the right smart grid in place, we will be able to transition away from the carbon-based sources as we can.
Again, legislation could further spur the changes- carbon tax on business and/or whatever incentives. If we can create jobs, wealth and health without harsh taxes, we can keep the momentum as a progressive society. When combined with health care for all, the regressive party will shrink in significance quite a bit. They have painted themselves in an extremist/racist corner. Poetic justice for them to lurk toward partial extinction, since they are against evolution.

We will need to come at this from many, many angles - there is no ONE solution, but rather systemic changes mixed with legislative, cultural, habitual and so on....

I like that we are talking about these things and kicking long term positive changes again/still. Just reacting to Bushism all the time is a drag, and change is needed quickly, I agree.

:hi:
http://smallisprofitable.org/
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/002152.html
http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/news/2003/story09-23-03.html