When is this country going to realize that we need a comprehensive energy conservation plan?

[madinmaryland]

Until we can reduce or eliminate our reliance on foreign oil and energy, we are always going to be at risk.

We need more and better public transportation, much more fuel efficient personal transportation options, incentives for energy efficiency and conservation for homes and businesses.

[pbca]

1. Really kinda too late

As I mentioned here - investment analysts in Canada think that the (adjusted for US and adjusted for expected declines in use) price of gas will hit $15/gal by 2012 - also pretty much too late on global warming. Arctic ice is down by 40% since 2000 at the current rate there will be no ice in the arctic by 2020

[madinmaryland]

5. I saw that report, and it may take some different directions than what they

propose. I could see $150-175/bbl oil, but that is going to such a crimp on the economy that it will work to signicantly reduce demand. Unfortunately that money goes to unstable middle eastern nations and not back into our nation. Imagine what a $1/gal tax would have generated if implemented 20 years ago.

I don't know if it is too late to couteract global warming, but a significant drop in the consumption of fossil fuels could moderate the impact of global warming, though probably not stop what has been started.

[pbca]

9. Oil is

such a large industry in Canada that the investment houses have alot of very smart people working very hard on this. Apparently their estimates include an expected drop in North American demand.

I think that the reality must be faced that by 2012 (the next Presidential election) that commuting (by car) and air travel simply won't be economically feasable for most in North America.

[GaYellowDawg]

2. When FauxNews, fundamentalist preachers, and RW radio hosts push it.

Otherwise, there will always be that 25%-30% who are agin' everything they don't hear from Fox, Rush, or the pulpit.

[magellan]

3. I think most of the country has realized it

There just isn't any appreciable leadership on the issue. We could employ so many people by rolling out green energy initiatives across the country, and using gov't funds to get available sources (wind power, solar) to everyone.

But we'd have to stop sinking money into the bottomless pit of war profiteers first.

[Kitty Herder]

13. I was going to say pretty much the same thing. But I would add,

as long as the fossil fuel industries, the auto industry, etc., hold as much sway politically as they do, it's going to be hard fight. They block our message and our efforts at every turn.

And those who hold jobs in those industries need to be assured a living, either by being fast-tracked into the new green-collar industries or through a functioning social safety net.

[The2ndWheel]

4. Conservation can't happen

Until all 6.5 billion people have everything they need. Then until the next few billion people that are added to the totals before the number even begins to level off have everything they need.

Until that day, and not a single person can be added to the total when that day comes, and nobody can have any reason to use an ounce of extra energy when that day comes, conservation of energy will not happen.

[madinmaryland]

6. Not sure of your point?

Is it sarcasm?

[The2ndWheel]

14. I wish

Do we use more or less energy today than we did in 2000? 1990? 1960? 1940? 1860? 1776? 1492?

We do not conserve energy. Our entire way of life is based on growth. You cannot conserve energy when that is your foundation. That foundation will not change. Every economic system requires growth of energy use. The more energy we use, the larger the impact we have on the planet.

So it's not sarcasm. It's the consequences of our actions. It's the equal and opposite reaction. It's the result of making it easier to extract energy from the environment. We don't do that so that we can use less energy.

[madinmaryland]

16. The point is two fold. One is to reduce the energy requirements

per person, and secondly to control population growth.

[The2ndWheel]

19. But that won't happen anytime soon

Our population will continue to go up before it starts to go down. Billions of people are currently barely hooked into, or not at all hooked into, the global socio-economic system. When those two things happen, we might start conserving energy. However, life has a way of giving us at least one new problem for every problem we solve. Usually our solution creates the new problem.

Plus we're not even dealing with the problems we're currently creating. Those will only hit us years from now. Our current climate problems are the result of what we did decades ago(if not centuries). We're still rapaciously carving up the planet as we try and think of what to currently do about previous actions. We're running from existence and we're never going to catch up to ourselves.

[Cleita]

7. The energy industry is running our government via

the Bush administration and Republican Party. Don't look for any intelligent conversation and conservation on this matter until we run them out of Dodge.

[SammyWinstonJack]

10. No one currently running for President, when elected, is going to run

our corprat overlords out of Dodge. Not one of them.

[Cleita]

21. You are absolutely right. It's going to take us the unwashed

proletariat that is going to have to do it.

[madinmaryland]

11. That's true, but they also control much of the Democratic party also.

Unfortunately, its going to take those dire predictions of $200/bbl happening to actually force congress to act. Hopefully it won't be a repub congress that authorized more wars for oil.

[mdmc]

8. JIMMY CARTER UNDERSTANDS!`

[madinmaryland]

12. Your are correct! He had the presience 30 years ago to realize

that conservation was our real solution and actually get legislation passed increasing gas mileage.

[mdmc]

23. agreed

:toast:

[Solon]

15. The key here is to try to use less energy to do the same things you did in the past....

for example, lobby for public transportation, whether light rail, high speed intercity trains, or buses, so that lower energy options exist for people to be transported from place to place. A bus may weigh more than a car, but it can also haul around up to 50 people to their places of business or back home. That makes even the worse maintained and gas guzzling bus more efficient than even hybrid cars that get 50-60 miles to the gallon. Convert that bus to electric, in addition to lobbying for getting weaned off of coal for electricity production, and you can have a lower carbon footprint with that than even an electric car.

[madinmaryland]

17. Absolutely!

Public transportaion is key, just as more energy efficient homes and businesses. Assuming in your case a bus carrying 50 people 50 miles to work and the bus gets 5 miles to the gallon. Given the bus would use 20 gallons of fuel, correlating to 0.4 gallons/person, whereas a person in a highly efficient Hybrid would be using 2.0 gallons/person.

[The2ndWheel]

20. That's fine, if all you do in the future is the same thing that you did in the past

But that's not what ends up happening.

[BonnieJW]

18. January 20, 2009

[Solon]

22. What's going to happen on that day that's significant?

Neither Democrat has a comprehensive plan to wean us off of fossil fuels on a practical level, hell, in some cases(advocating for hydrogen, corn based biofuels, coal liquefaction) the "cure" is actually worse than the disease.