In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities, and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption. Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns. But we've discovered that owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning. We've learned that piling up material goods cannot fill the emptiness of lives which have no confidence or purpose.
The symptoms of this crisis of the American spirit are all around us. For the first time in the history of our country a majority of our people believe that the next five years will be worse than the past five years. Two-thirds of our people do not even vote. The productivity of American workers is actually dropping, and the willingness of Americans to save for the future has fallen below that of all other people in the Western world.
...
We are at a turning point in our history. There are two paths to choose. One is a path I've warned about tonight, the path that leads to fragmentation and self-interest. Down that road lies a mistaken idea of freedom, the right to grasp for ourselves some advantage over others. That path would be one of constant conflict between narrow interests ending in chaos and immobility. It is a certain route to failure.
All the traditions of our past, all the lessons of our heritage, all the promises of our future point to another path, the path of common purpose and the restoration of American values. That path leads to true freedom for our nation and ourselves. We can take the first steps down that path as we begin to solve our energy problem.
Energy will be the immediate test of our ability to unite this nation, and it can also be the standard around which we rally. On the battlefield of energy we can win for our nation a new confidence, and we can seize control again of our common destiny.
That was from a speech given by then-President Jimmy Carter in 1979. Love him or hate him, I think anyone would be hard pressed to deny that Carter may have been onto something there....
I mean...maybe it's just me...but it seems pretty clear at this point that we took the wrong path. Had we actually explored energy independence, as Carter suggested in the late 70's, we might not be in the pickle we're in today.
If you're into symbolism, you might even be inclined to mark the day we started down the "route to failure" as the day Reagan ordered that Carter's solar panels be torn from the roof of the White House.
Quote:
That was from a speech given by then-President Jimmy Carter in 1979. Love him or hate him, I think anyone would be hard pressed to deny that Carter may have been onto something there....
I mean...maybe it's just me...but it seems pretty clear at this point that we took the wrong path. Had we actually explored energy independence, as Carter suggested in the late 70's, we might not be in the pickle we're in today.
If you're into symbolism, you might even be inclined to mark the day we started down the "route to failure" as the day Reagan ordered that Carter's solar panels be torn from the roof of the White House.
While I'm all for energy independence, solar and wind are not the answer. Solar is fine for someones home, I love that idea, but on a large scale it (along with wind) simply takes up too much room and produces too little power. I'm thinking along the lines of nuclear energy, hydropower, and geothermal, all of which produce a lot of power, take up minimal space, and are consistent, unlike wind and solar. Also drill for oil in Alaska.
Quote:
That was from a speech given by then-President Jimmy Carter in 1979. Love him or hate him, I think anyone would be hard pressed to deny that Carter may have been onto something there....
I mean...maybe it's just me...but it seems pretty clear at this point that we took the wrong path. Had we actually explored energy independence, as Carter suggested in the late 70's, we might not be in the pickle we're in today.
If you're into symbolism, you might even be inclined to mark the day we started down the "route to failure" as the day Reagan ordered that Carter's solar panels be torn from the roof of the White House.
While I'm all for energy independence, solar and wind are not the answer. Solar is fine for someones home, I love that idea, but on a large scale it (along with wind) simply takes up too much room and produces too little power. I'm thinking along the lines of nuclear energy, hydropower, and geothermal, all of which produce a lot of power, take up minimal space, and are consistent, unlike wind and solar. Also drill for oil in Alaska.
Not just that but you have to be able to afford the thousands of dollars just to have them installed on your property. I can't afford to pay that much of a lump sum unless they offer a 2-5 year payment plan.
Quote:
Ah, but would that have been the case if we'd been taking energy independence seriously for the last 30 years?
We'll never know, because we didn't go down that path.
Quote:
That's all fine....
Quote:
Just out of curiosity...who, exactly, should drill for oil in Alaska, and what should become of that oil?
Because...here's the thing...if things happen the way they happen now, it wouldn't be "us" drilling for oil in Alaska, it would be oil companies. As such, the oil wouldn't be "ours," but theirs -- we'd just get a little royalty on it, as is the case with offshore drilling today. Now, what they do with their oil today is sell it on the global market, which means it competes with oil from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezeula, etc, and it would be just as expensive as it is today..
All that said, the only way allowing oil companies to drill in Alaska -- ANWR, I'm assuming -- could possibly bring down the price of oil would be if the oil companies were dumb enough to pump so much of it into the market that it depressed prices..
But..why would they do that? Why would they work harder to deliver more barrels for less money per barrel when they can just keep doing what they're doing now and make the same money with less work?
The answer, of course, is that they wouldn't.. Incidentally, that's why there are thousands upon thousands of acres of oil leases sitting untapped in the midwest.. Think on that for a minute......
So, anyway, the bottom line is that "Drill here/Drill now" won't work -- unless of course...
...unless we nationalize oil production like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, etc.. If it were nationalized, the only interest would be in making sure the American people are able to make use their own oil at the lowest possible price.
If, however, it's left to the free market...think about it...the free market seeks the highest reward for the least amount of effort. That's just the nature of the beast. It's always going to be exactly as expensive as the market will bear.
So, are you on board with "Government Oil," or should we just leave it in the ground until things get REALLY bad and we have no other choice?
I say leave it....let's put our dollars toward finding better energy sources instead.. We can do it -- we're Americans. We can do anything.
And when we do develop the technology to escape oil, we'll do the other thing Americans are traditionally good at doing -- we'll sell it to everyone else for a killing.
I dunno about you, but that sounds pretty sweet to me.
Quote:
Yep.. It's a shame solar panels and such haven't come further in the last...oh, I dunno...30 years or so, isn't it?
Wonder why that is......?
Oh, wait...that's right. Reagan not only tore the solar panels off the White House, but his administration also gutted solar energy research funding..
It's not really happenstance that solar energy is still as expensive as it is....that's by design. Development of solar energy was intentionally stunted -- as was development of other forms of alternative energy -- to prevent oil from being knocked off its perch.
Quote:
Yep.. It's a shame solar panels and such haven't come further in the last...oh, I dunno...30 years or so, isn't it?
Wonder why that is......?
Oh, wait...that's right. Reagan not only tore the solar panels off the White House, but his administration also gutted solar energy research funding..
It's not really happenstance that solar energy is still as expensive as it is....that's by design. Development of solar energy was intentionally stunted -- as was development of other forms of alternative energy -- to prevent oil from being knocked off its perch.
Hopefully, that's changing..
Oh, great. Why do people equate government funding with science itself?
Quote:
Ah, but would that have been the case if we'd been taking energy independence seriously for the last 30 years?
We'll never know, because we didn't go down that path.
Quote:
That's all fine....
Quote:
Just out of curiosity...who, exactly, should drill for oil in Alaska, and what should become of that oil?
Because...here's the thing...if things happen the way they happen now, it wouldn't be "us" drilling for oil in Alaska, it would be oil companies. As such, the oil wouldn't be "ours," but theirs -- we'd just get a little royalty on it, as is the case with offshore drilling today. Now, what they do with their oil today is sell it on the global market, which means it competes with oil from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezeula, etc, and it would be just as expensive as it is today..
All that said, the only way allowing oil companies to drill in Alaska -- ANWR, I'm assuming -- could possibly bring down the price of oil would be if the oil companies were dumb enough to pump so much of it into the market that it depressed prices..
But..why would they do that? Why would they work harder to deliver more barrels for less money per barrel when they can just keep doing what they're doing now and make the same money with less work?
The answer, of course, is that they wouldn't.. Incidentally, that's why there are thousands upon thousands of acres of oil leases sitting untapped in the midwest.. Think on that for a minute......
So, anyway, the bottom line is that "Drill here/Drill now" won't work -- unless of course...
...unless we nationalize oil production like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, etc.. If it were nationalized, the only interest would be in making sure the American people are able to make use their own oil at the lowest possible price.
If, however, it's left to the free market...think about it...the free market seeks the highest reward for the least amount of effort. That's just the nature of the beast. It's always going to be exactly as expensive as the market will bear.
So, are you on board with "Government Oil," or should we just leave it in the ground until things get REALLY bad and we have no other choice?
I say leave it....let's put our dollars toward finding better energy sources instead.. We can do it -- we're Americans. We can do anything.
And when we do develop the technology to escape oil, we'll do the other thing Americans are traditionally good at doing -- we'll sell it to everyone else for a killing.
I dunno about you, but that sounds pretty sweet to me.
Your comment about the free market... It makes no sense. Why do people never factor in competition? Of course they're gonna try to make it as expensive as possible, but to get more customers they need to have better prices than the competition. Also, did you mean it to sound like you were promoting nationalization of industry (communism)? I find it amusing that you called the free market a "beast." That term is far more appropriately applied to our octopus government, which reaches its tentacles into everything it can. Nationalized industries have no profit motive, therefore no effeciency motive. An example: former judge Andrew Napolitano was in line at a ticket booth for Amtrak. The line was long, despite the fact that there were FIVE OTHER BOOTHS, none of which were operating. And why should they? They don't have anything to lose since they're tax-funded. Another great example: The Transcontinental Railroad. They were paid by the government for every mile of track laid, so there was an incentive to lay track on roundabout routes, whereas the privately funded Great Northern railroad (also transcontinental) was famous for effeciency. Profit motive=effeciency.
Edit:
About Alaska, the reason they would drill is, of course, to sell it. Selling gets money. I'm all for "getting off oil," but oil right now is the most effecient fuel in the history of the world.
cmjust0 wrote: Yep.. It's a shame solar panels and such haven't come further in the last...oh, I dunno...30 years or so, isn't it?
Wonder why that is......?
That's not true. Go to Europe. Almost every new house built in the last few years have roofs made of solar panels. They are added onto single family homes at reasonable costs. The homeowner profits after 10 years and is paid back any excess power sent into the grid system. Europe is light years ahead of the United States in terms of power and fuel, BUT the price they pay is many times more than Americans are paying. Americans are in for one of the rudest awakenings of their lives!
If anyone believes the climate bill is good, they need to take a trip to Europe and see how it really works. Pay those prices for awhile and yes, the government does determine when your furnace is no longer efficient enough and MAKES you replace it. They also determine when your insulation is sub-standard and you MUST fix it or you'll never sell your house and you will pay an energy use (waste) tax. PERIOD.
By the way, you will also pay these people a yearly fee to come and do an energy audit of your house. It's called job creation.
It's like having a home inspection done every year on your house for no good reason and what ever this guy determines stands. Gee, no room for corruption there!
Also, yearly emissions tax is due on your vehicle overseas. The more emissions, the higher the tax of course. For example, an SUV can be 400 Euros ($560) per year, every year. How are you going to pay that?
This climate bill will put me and my family out of business as we know it. I plan to stop producing, making money and funding these bills until further notice.
And, since I've always really just rented my home from Uncle Sam (property taxes) they may as well just take the rest of it too.
Quote:
Yep.. It's a shame solar panels and such haven't come further in the last...oh, I dunno...30 years or so, isn't it?
Wonder why that is......?
Oh, wait...that's right. Reagan not only tore the solar panels off the White House, but his administration also gutted solar energy research funding..
It's not really happenstance that solar energy is still as expensive as it is....that's by design. Development of solar energy was intentionally stunted -- as was development of other forms of alternative energy -- to prevent oil from being knocked off its perch.
Hopefully, that's changing..
Reagan pretty much gutted everything. He was trying to get rid of the middle class. He instituted the largest middle class tax increases in history and made the largest cuts for the ultra rich. Carter had the right idea but he was too soft when the country needed strength. The Iran hostage situation really did him in. Left us open to a Hollywood actor that costarred in B movies.
I think the cap and trade actually gives you credits for going solar and making your house more energy efficient. Also give s credit to builders for building green houses. These credits can be sold on what is a lot like the stock market. Problem is it sounds like there are all the usual loop holes that allow greedy unscrupulous people to take advantage of it and cheat everyone.
Eventually gas powered cars will be a thing of the past. As was proven last summer. Raise cost and people will conserve. No reason to destroy the environment just trying to delay what is going to happen anyway. Better to be prepared for the day when Mother Earth has no more oil o give us.
