Clinton's New Energy and Climate Policy

Thanks to David Roberts over at Grist for picking up Hillary Clinton's new climate and energy plan, which was just introduced in the last couple of days, and can be found copied under the fold and in PDF format here. (Thanks silence!)

I had hoped to have time to give you a good analysis of both Clinton and Giuliani's plans, but I'm just swamped. So, I wanted to give you a crack at HRC's, then next week we'll talk about Rudy's; it's long, and it's under the fold. Enjoy.

Powering America's Future: Hillary Clinton's Plan to Address the Energy and Climate Crisis

Hillary understands that we face two immense energy and environmental challenges: a growing climate crisis, and an increasing reliance on foreign oil that is driving up energy costs for Americans. She also knows that Americans have always demonstrated the will and the ingenuity to confront the problems of their times, from the New Deal, to the Cold War, to the Space Race. Today, global warming and dependence on foreign oil are two of the biggest challenges of our time, and as President, Hillary will set three big goals to meet them:

* Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80% from 1990 levels by 2050 -- the level necessary to avoid the worst impacts of global warming.
* Cut foreign oil imports by two-thirds from projected levels by 2030.
* Transform our carbon-based economy into an efficient green economy, creating at least 5 million jobs from clean energy over the next decade.

Hillary Clinton's plan to promote energy independence, address global warming, and transform our economy includes:

* A new cap-and-trade program that auctions 100% of permits alongside investments to move us on the path towards energy independence;
* An aggressive, comprehensive energy efficiency agenda to reduce electricity consumption 20% from projected levels by 2020 by changing the way utilities do business, catalyzing a green building industry, enacting strict appliance efficiency standards, and phasing out incandescent light bulbs;
* A $50 billion Strategic Energy Fund, paid for in part by oil companies, to fund investments in alternative energy. The SEF will finance one-third of the $150 billon ten-year investment in a new energy future contained in this plan;
* Doubling of federal investment in basic energy research, including funding for an ARPA-E, a new research agency modeled on the successful Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
* Aggressive action to transition our economy toward renewable energy sources, with renewables generating 25% of electricity by 2030 and with 60 billion gallons of home-grown biofuels available for cars and trucks by 2030;
* 10 "Smart Grid City" partnerships to prove the advanced capabilities of smart grid and other advanced demand-reduction technologies, as well as new investment in plug-in hybrid vehicle technologies;
* An increase in fuel efficiency standards to 55 miles per gallon by 2030, and $20 billion of "Green Vehicle Bonds" to help U.S. automakers retool their plants to meet the standards;
* A plan to catalyze a thriving green building industry by investing in green collar jobs and helping to modernize and retrofit 20 million low-income homes to make them more energy efficient;
* A new "Connie Mae" program to make it easier for low and middle-income Americans to buy green homes and invest in green home improvements;
* A requirement that all publicly traded companies report financial risks due to climate change in annual reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission; and
* Creation of a "National Energy Council" within the White House to ensure implementation of the plan across the Executive Branch.

The Challenge

Our reliance on foreign oil raises prices for families, contributes to the climate crisis, and leaves us more vulnerable to unstable regimes: Since 2001, gasoline prices have increased 105%, and energy costs are now consuming nearly one-fifth of after-tax income for the majority of low and middle-income families -- double the percentage of 10 years ago. And today, with oil prices at all-time highs near $100 a barrel, foreign oil now accounts for 60% of the almost 21 million barrels of crude oil that we consume each day. In order to meet this demand, we send $20 billion each year to the Middle East. Our investment has filled the coffers of corrupt regimes in developing countries, many of whom do not share our interests. In the next twenty years, if American oil dependence continues to grow as rapidly as it has in recent years, we will send more than $5 trillion out of the United States economy.

Our planet is warming, with potentially cataclysmic results: The scientific community has established beyond doubt that global warming is occurring; the 20th century's last two decades were the hottest in 400 years. The IPCC has further predicted that the average temperature will rise by three to nine degrees by the end of the century, and as a result sea levels will rise between 7 and 23 inches, dramatically affecting the one hundred million people who live within 3 feet of the mean sea level. Security experts believe that these impacts will pose a serious national security threat by increasing instability in some of the world's most volatile regions.

The Costs of Inaction are Rising: The failure to address the climate crisis will put the United States economy in jeopardy. A recent University of Maryland study of the economic costs of continued climate change in the United States documented hundreds of billions of dollars of increased costs in all regions of the country due to the heightened risk of forest fires in the West and Northwest; increased frequency and severity of flooding and drought events in the Great Plains and Midwest; and more frequent and intense heat waves like the 1995 Chicago heat wave, which resulted in 600 deaths. A recent U.N. report on the state of the global environment suggests that the costs of inaction in the face of climate change and other global environmental problems exceeds the cost of acting to reduce pollution.

Hillary Clinton's Plan: Turning the Challenges of Energy Dependence and Global Warming into an Economic Opportunity

Meeting the challenge of reducing our nation's energy dependence and staving off the threat of global climate change will require the leadership of the President and the cooperation of the private sector and all Americans:

* Our government has a responsibility to provide a framework, incentives and investments to move us on the path towards energy independence; lead again in the international arena; and reform its organizational structure to address this new energy challenge.
* Oil companies must help develop a thriving alternative energy industry in America by investing more in alternative energy or by funding such investments through a windfall profits fee.
* Utilities have a responsibility to fundamentally reshape how they do business; transitioning from outdated systems that reward excess energy production to market-based approaches that reward efficiency, distributed generation, and conservation.
* Auto companies need to improve fuel efficiency in their cars and trucks.
* Businesses large and small should strive to make their operations and products more energy efficient, which will help them save money and be more competitive.
* Individuals have a responsibility to lower their own energy consumption and hold their leaders accountable for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

GOVERNMENT'S ROLE:

Setting the Rules of the Road, And Leading the Way by Reforming Itself to Meet New Energy Challenges

Reducing Global Warming Pollution 80% by 2050, Protecting Consumers, and Supporting Clean Energy -- A fundamental cornerstone of Hillary's plan is reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 -- the level necessary to avoid the most dire consequences of global warming. Hillary will achieve this aggressive reduction by maximizing our energy efficiency; creating market mechanisms to efficiently reduce greenhouse gas emissions; and promoting renewable, carbon-free energy sources.

Creating a Market-Based Cap and Trade Program, and Auctioning 100% of Greenhouse Gas Permits -- Hillary will establish a market-based "cap and trade" system to provide an overall framework for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The system would auction 100% of allowances to ensure that utilities and other companies do not obtain a windfall. The system would also provide flexibility for companies to bank, borrow and trade allowances. The proceeds from the sale of allowances would be used to provide tax benefits for working and middle-class families and energy intensive industries, as well as incentives for energy efficiency and renewable technologies. The cap and trade approach was used successfully to limit sulfur dioxide and reduce levels of acid rain in 1990s to reduce annual sulfur dioxide emissions by 7 million tons below 1980 levels.

Restoring Federal Leadership In Energy Efficiency -- The federal government is the country's largest energy consumer. About half of the energy used by the federal government goes to heat, cool and power the more than 500,000 federal buildings around the country, costing taxpayers $5.6 billion per year. Hillary would restore federal energy leadership by:

* Making all new federal buildings designed after January 20, 2009 carbon neutral;
* Requiring the Department of Housing and Urban Development and other agencies to bring energy efficiency standards for public housing up to date with leading private sector standards;
* Strengthening national model building codes, while providing funding to help states and localities update their codes to meet the national standards;
* Making energy efficiency a core mission of the General Services Administration, and directing GSA to lead a government-wide "energy audit" and install cost-effective retrofits in all federal buildings within 5 years; directing GSA to work more closely with the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) within DOE to install cutting-edge energy efficiency technology from both the national labs and private companies in federal buildings; and
* Requiring that all federally built housing in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast be built to tough energy efficiency standards.

Adapting to Climate Change: Hillary has an aggressive plan to address global warming, but she also recognizes that global warming is already occurring, and that we need to begin to prepare for global warming impacts that are on the horizon. She would direct federal agencies to work with state and local governments to begin planning and preparing for impacts on coastal areas from more intense storms and changes in sea level; for impacts on water supply from increased droughts and reduced snowpack; and for impacts on wildlife and other natural resources from climate-induced changes.

UTILITIES' ROLE:

Maximizing Efficiency, Ramping Up Use of Renewables, and Modernizing the Grid

Utilities have a key role to play in helping to bring about a clean energy future. Hillary would set tough goals and provide utilities with the tools they need to meet them.

Reducing Electricity Demand 20% From Projected Levels by 2020: Since 1970, energy efficiency has met three-fourths of all new demand for energy services. California has pursued efficiency as an energy resource for decades, with the result that energy use per capita or per unit of economic output is about 30% lower in California than in the nation as a whole. Yet enormous energy efficiency potential remains. A 2000 Department of Energy report found that energy-efficiency policies and programs could cost-effectively reduce U.S. energy use in residential buildings by 20% by 2020. To spur greater investment in efficiency, Hillary would put policies in place to reduce electricity demand 20 percent from projected levels by 2020, and to flatten demand for natural gas. Achieving these efficiency goals would save consumers a total of more than $272 billion dollars, reduce carbon dioxide emissions by more than 7.5 billion tons through 2030, and create millions of jobs.

Changing the Way Utilities Do Business: The current model for electric and natural gas utilities puts customers and utilities at odds on efficiency investments. Consumers benefit by spending less on electricity, while utilities actually lose money from every electron or cubic foot of gas saved through energy efficiency. As a result, utilities lack incentives to implement programs that would reduce demand, even if those efficiency programs are more cost-effective than building new power plants. Breaking this model would enable consumers and utilities to share in the benefits of efficiency, and when combined with a requirement that utilities take steps to reduce demand, would unleash tens of billions of dollars of investments in energy efficiency technology. To put this process in motion, Hillary would set binding energy efficiency targets for utilities at the national level. She would then encourage states to establish rate rules for utilities that both decouple electricity sales from utility profits and enable utilities to profit from investments in energy efficiency.

Modernizing the Grid for the 21st Century Using "Smart Grid" Technology: Our electricity grid is antiquated, resulting in costly blackouts, the overbuilding of generation capacity, and large losses in energy during transmission. We need to move aggressively toward a smart grid -- a web-enabled, digitally controlled, intelligent power delivery system that efficiently distributes electricity and protects against blackouts, brown-outs and excess energy use. With smarter two-way communications, utilities and consumers can get more control over consumption and save money. A recent study found that using demand reduction programs, which would be greatly facilitated by an interactive smart grid, can reduce "peak demand" by 5 percent and save $35 billion in energy costs over a 10-year period. Other potential "smart grid" benefits include: more efficient power plants; smaller transmission infrastructure needs; more control and better incentives for consumers to save energy; net metering for solar and other distributed renewables; and the ability for consumers to sell power back into the grid. Hillary would realize the potential of the smart grid by:

* Funding 10 "Smart Grid Cities." These public-private partnerships between states, cities, utilities, automakers and battery makers will deploy smart grid technology and plug-in hybrid vehicles on a large scale, as well as encourage other technological options to discourage consumption during peak cost periods like time of use meters and pricing, real time demand response, visual price meters, and "prepaid" service models. The projects will enable testing and refinement of advanced capabilities, such as the ability of plug-in hybrid vehicles to communicate with the smart grid to sell power back to utilities when utilities most need the power. Some experts believe that providing such "vehicle to grid" power at times when the utilities need it most could be worth $2,000-4,000 dollars per vehicle per year, slashing the cost of owning a plug-in hybrid;
* Establishing interoperability standards to enable smart grid systems to be integrated seamlessly;
* Requiring state utility commissions to consider incentives to deploy smart grid technology;
* Providing tax incentives, such as accelerated depreciation, to utilities that install smart grid technology; and
* Directing the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to identify areas where transmission investments are most needed in order to meet a goal of 25% renewable electricity by 2025.

Producing 25 Percent of Electricity from Wind, Solar, Biomass, Geothermal and Other Renewable Sources by 2025: Wind, solar and other non-hydro renewables accounted for only 2.3 percent of electricity generation in 2005. Hydropower added another 6.6 percent. However, a recent study using Department of Energy models found that getting to 20% renewable electricity by 2020 would save consumers $10.5 billion, reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 223 million metric tons per year, spur $66.7 billion in new capital investment and increase income to farmers, ranchers and rural landowners by $25.6 billion. Hillary would establish a national target of producing 25% of our electricity from renewable sources by 2025. In addition to setting this target, Hillary would:

* Encourage investment in wind, solar and other renewable energy production by making permanent the 1.9 cent per kilowatt-hour tax credit for producing electricity from renewable sources;
* Provide tax incentives for families and businesses to install small-scale renewable energy such as rooftop solar panels; and
* Establish national "net metering" standards to ensure that families and businesses who install solar panels or other renewable energy resources can sell power back to the grid on fair terms.

Addressing Nuclear Power: Hillary believes that energy efficiency and renewables are better options for addressing global warming and meeting our future power needs, because of significant unresolved concerns about the cost of producing nuclear power, the safety of operating plants, waste disposal, and nuclear proliferation. Hillary opposes new subsidies for nuclear power, but believes that we need to take additional steps to deal with the problems facing nuclear power. She would strengthen the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and direct it to improve safety and security at nuclear power plants; terminate work at the flawed Yucca Mountain site and convene a panel of scientific experts to explore alternatives for disposing of nuclear waste; and continue research, with a focus on lower costs and improving safety.

Phasing Out Incandescent Bulbs: Compact fluorescent light bulbs use 75% less energy than traditional light bulbs and can last as much as 10 times longer. Hillary will phase out traditional light bulbs, beginning with 40-watt bulbs in 2012. By 2020, all light bulbs would be 300% more efficient, cutting the national electric bill by more than $10 billion. Hillary will also help to jumpstart the market for advanced "LED" lighting technology by requiring that it be used in federal parking lots.

OIL AND ENERGY INDUSTRY'S ROLE:

Investing in Alternative Energy and Supporting Biofuels

Creating a $50 Billion Strategic Energy Fund and Demand that Oil Companies Invest in Clean Energy -- In 2005, Exxon Mobil's CEO told Congress that his company's investment in alternative energy technologies over the prior decade was "negligible." Hillary believes it is time for oil companies to do their share in funding clean energy technologies. She would give oil companies a choice: invest more in renewable energy technology or pay into a Strategic Energy Fund. The Strategic Energy Fund would also eliminate oil company tax breaks and make sure that oil companies pay their fair share in royalties when drilling on public lands. This fund would jumpstart a clean energy future by injecting $50 billion over ten years into research, development and deployment of renewable energy, energy efficiency, clean coal technology, ethanol and other homegrown biofuels.

Increasing production of biofuels to 60 billion gallons by 2030: Home-grown biofuels can reduce our dependence on foreign oil and cut greenhouse gas emissions. Rapid growth of corn ethanol production capacity in recent years and emerging technology that will enable production of ethanol and other biofuels from a range of biomass sources indicate the potential of biofuels to displace a significant amount of gasoline. To spur increased production of ethanol and other renewable fuels, Hillary would raise the national renewable fuels goal from the current level of

7.5 billion gallons by 2012 to 36 billion gallons per year by 2022 and to 60 billion gallons by 2030. "Advanced biofuels," such as cellulosic ethanol, would comprise an increasing share of that target over time. Hillary will set a greenhouse gas emissions target for cellulosic and other advanced biofuels to ensure that they move over time towards a standard of emitting at least 80% less greenhouse gas as compared to gasoline. In addition, she would provide loan guarantees to spur the first two billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol capacity.

AUTO INDUSTRY'S ROLE:

New Technologies to Help Cut Oil Imports 66% by 2030

Transportation accounts for nearly 70% of U.S. oil consumption. Hillary's plan to cut oil imports by two-thirds -- or more than 10 million barrels per day -- by 2030 centers on setting tough new fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks and providing retooling assistance to the automakers to help them meet these standards. Her plan also reduces oil demand by increasing biofuels production and improving the efficiency of industrial oil use.

Increasing Vehicle Fuel Economy Standards to 55 Miles Per Gallon: Hillary would raise fleet-wide fuel economy standards from the current level of 25 miles per gallon (mpg) to 40 mpg in 2020 and 55 mpg in 2030. By 2030, these tough CAFE standards will save consumers more than $180 billion per year and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by more than 730 million metric tons. In addition, Hillary would reform the fuel economy system while ensuring that it encourages the continued production of small cars here in the United States. Cars and light trucks account for about 40 percent of the 21 million barrels of oil consumed every day in the United States. Yet the average fuel economy of American cars has stagnated for the last 15 years. And as our country and economy have grown, flat fuel economy has meant increasing dependence on foreign oil, and an untenable foreign trade situation in which the United States transfers funds that are borrowed from China to Saudi Arabia.

Helping Automakers Meet the Energy Challenge: Domestic automakers face serious competitive challenges due to higher labor costs, older equipment, and higher health care costs than their competition. But they are demonstrating the vision to meet our future energy needs by proposing to build plug-in hybrid vehicles that can run on electricity and flex-fuel vehicles that can run on ethanol. Hillary would authorize $20 billion in low-interest "Green Vehicle Bonds" in order to provide immediate help to retool the oldest auto plants to meet her strong efficiency standards. She will address retiree health legacy costs by providing a tax credit for qualifying private and public retiree health plans to offset a significant portion of catastrophic expenditures that exceed a certain threshold.

Accelerating the Production of "Plug-In" Hybrid Electric Vehicles: - A Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV) is a hybrid gas-electric vehicle with a more powerful battery that can be plugged into any regular outlet. It can be filled up at the gas station, and it can be "filled up" at home by plugging it into a standard outlet. Half the cars on America's roads are driven 25 miles a day or less, so a plug-in with a 25-mile range battery could eliminate gasoline use in the daily commute of tens of millions of Americans. A recent study showed that a vehicle powered by electricity releases one-third less global warming pollution into the environment than a gasoline-powered vehicle, even if the electricity comes mostly from coal-fired power plants. PHEVs offer the promise of achieving more than 100 miles per gallon of gasoline consumed; and a flex-fuel PHEV running on E85 can potentially get 500 miles per gallon of gasoline. Hillary would invest in research and stimulate demand for the first commercial PHEVs by:

* Investing $2 billion in research and development to reduce the cost and increase the longevity and durability of batteries;
* Offering consumers tax credits of up to $10,000 for purchasing a plug-in hybrid; and
* Adding 100,000 PHEVs to the federal fleet by 2015.

INDUSTRY'S ROLE:

Dramatically Increasing Efficiency

Making Appliances More Energy Efficient: Energy efficiency standards for appliances have been very effective. Today's refrigerator uses about a third of the energy that a refrigerator did in the 1970s. Yet there are more than 15 appliance types with significant energy savings opportunities that have no federal efficiency standards. Adopting efficiency standards for these 15 products alone could save consumers $54 billion in energy costs between now and 2030. Hillary would direct the Department of Energy to update existing standards and set tough new standards for appliances that do not have them today.

Establishing a "Connie Mae" to Help Homeowners Improve the Energy Efficiency of Their Houses: Builders often neglect to make energy efficient investments because they add to the purchase price, even though they save money down the road. As President, Hillary will establish a "Carbon Reduction Mortgage Association," or "Connie Mae," by directing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to facilitate the origination of energy efficiency improvement loans in order to subsidize the additional costs of investing in energy efficiency from the outset. Fannie and Freddie could guarantee some loans, securitize others, or hold loans in their own portfolios. Individual loans will be capped at the greater of 5% of the property's value (up to $10,000) or $5,000, and tough efficiency standards would apply. An energy audit of the home will determine the size of the improvement loan needed, and the energy bill savings that will result. Borrowers will not be required to make down payments on the loans. And the energy bill savings will ultimately offset the cost of the loan. Hillary would commit up to $1 billion per year to the program, assisting upwards of 100,000 homeowners annually. The program will target lower- and middle-income homebuyers.

Requiring Corporate Disclosure of Financial Risks Posed by Global Warming: Global warming presents both risks and opportunities for companies. Investors need and deserve information about the risks that companies face due to global warming, and what their plans are to address them. Companies are required to disclose to shareholders major threats they are facing in other areas. Yet, the potential costs of global warming are not incorporated into most firms' financial projections. Some companies have stepped forward, forming a voluntary "Carbon Disclosure Project," a voluntary program that works with shareholders and corporations to disclose the greenhouse gas emissions of many major corporations. Hillary would build on this work by requiring the Securities and Exchange Commission to adopt disclosure obligations for all companies that are potentially impacted by climate change-related risks.

LOCAL COMMUNITIES' ROLE:

Helping Develop New Jobs of the Future by Pushing Efficiency

Green Cities, Green Buildings, Green Homes -- Buildings account for 40 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions nationwide and as much as 80% in densely populated urban areas like New York City. Indeed, cities cover just 2 percent of the planet's land but are responsible for three-quarters of its greenhouse gas emissions -- and therefore present the greatest opportunity for reducing those emissions. There are many ways to save energy and save money by reducing energy use in buildings, particularly in these urban areas:

Modernizing 20 Million Low-Income Homes to Improve Energy Efficiency. On average, energy bills account for about 14% of a low-income family's gross income, and for many they account for 20% or more. Economists estimate that more than 80% of energy expenses leave low-income communities, and thus do not generate additional economic activity inside those communities. By weatherizing homes, we can reduce heating bills by 31% and overall energy bills by $358 per year, savings that are significant for many low-income families. Hillary will weatherize 20 million low-income homes over 8 years, creating good jobs that cannot be outsourced.

Creating a Green Building Fund. Through the fund, the federal government would allocate $1 billion annually to states to make grants or low-interest loans to improve energy efficiency in public buildings, such as schools, police stations, firehouses and offices. The GBF will create more than 100,000 new "green collar" jobs. To be eligible for funding, projects would need to meet tough energy efficiency standards, such as the EPA Energy Star standard for buildings. The cost of this program would be split between the federal government and states and localities.

Training "Green Collar" Workers: Hillary would create a "Green Collar" jobs training program to provide the people who most need work with the skills to do the energy work that most needs doing. The program would target at-risk youth, veterans, displaced workers, and would teach them skills to install and maintain energy efficiency and renewable energy technology. When combined with Hillary's major investments in energy efficiency retrofits and renewable energy technologies, this training program would create a pathway out of poverty for many Americans.

Improving Public Transportation -- Increased public transit usage is one of the best strategies for addressing the energy and environmental costs of transportation. For every passenger mile traveled, public transportation produces only a fraction of the harmful pollution of private vehicles: only 5 percent as much carbon monoxide, less than 8 percent as many volatile organic compounds, and nearly half as much carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxides. As President, Hillary will increase federal funding for public transit, including buses, light rail and subways, by $1.5 billion per year. She will also link federal public transit funds to local land use policies that encourage residential developments that maximize public transit usage and discourage sprawl. She will also invest an additional $1 billion in intercity passenger rail systems. Intercity passenger rail is an environmentally efficient alternative to highway driving and short flights; it relieves congestion on roads and airports; reduces the emission of automotive pollutants; and it stimulates economic growth by linking metropolitan areas.

Getting More Farmers, Ranchers and Foresters into the Fight Against Global Warming. Farmers, ranchers and foresters can play an important role in confronting the challenge of climate change. Farm practices can help sequester carbon in the soil, offsetting emissions from other sources. And advances in energy efficiency can reduce the carbon footprint of working farms, contributing to an overall reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Ranchers and foresters can make similar contributions. To encourage these activities, Hillary would provide incentives for carbon sequestration and improved energy efficiency on America's farms and ranches and in its forests.

COAL INDUSTRY'S ROLE:

New Technology to Fight Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Efficiency First--Maximize Energy Efficiency to Address Coal Demand: A 2006 McKinsey Global Insight study of global energy efficiency potential found that all future energy service demand growth in North America can be met through cost-effective energy efficiency investments, such as greener building technologies and more efficient vehicles. Recent examples prove that efficiency can dramatically reduce the need to build new power plants. Earlier this year, investors acquired TXU and scrapped plans to build 8 of 11 planned coal-fired power plants in Texas. Part of the plan to replace the 8 planned power plants was a $400 million increase in expenditures on customer efficiency. To maximize the potential for efficiency, Hillary would direct state utility commissions to ensure that before approving an application to build a coal plant, there is an evaluation of whether the energy services provided by that plant could be met by cost-effective investments in energy efficiency.

Accelerating the Development of Clean Coal: Coal plays a major role in America's energy mix, powering fifty percent of America's electricity generation, and we still have enormous coal reserves. At the same time, coal-fired power plants are the largest contributor to U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, and are responsible for emissions of mercury and other dangerous pollutants. Hillary understands that continuing to build new coal plants in the same way that we have in the past will make it extremely difficult to meet our climate change goals. Hillary's plan includes many components that would alleviate the need for additional coal plants in the coming years. For example, hr strong efficiency measures will reduce the need for new power plants.

Hillary also believes that we need to take swift action to spur the development and deployment of technology and practices that will enable us to capture, store and safely sequester carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants. To accelerate the development of this important technology, Hillary would put immediate funding towards 10 large scale carbon capture and storage projects that utilize a range of coal types, power plant types, and storage locations. She will move quickly to develop the regulatory framework to ensure that carbon sequestration can be done safely and reliably. And she will require all new coal plants to be capable of adding capture and storage technology when it becomes commercially available.

INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY:

Reducing Demand and Helping Create Accountability for Change

Challenging Individuals, Schools, Colleges, and Communities to Help Our Nation Address Global Warming: In sharp contrast to President Bush, who after 9/11 asked only that people go shopping, Hillary will ask individuals to take action to prevent cataclysmic climate change. She recognizes the significant and positive impact on carbon emissions that small but widespread changes in individual behavior can have. She is challenging every American to hold themselves and their local leaders accountable to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. She would also issue a challenge to all Americans to sign a pledge to take steps in their own life to reduce energy consumption in measurable ways. In order to facilitate local efforts, Hillary will invest in measurement tools that will enable individuals and local communities to understand how much global warming pollution they are emitting, and to measure the impact of their efforts to reduce their carbon footprint. She will also challenge colleges and schools to reduce emissions on campus and in their communities, and propose a set of awards through the Department of Energy to recognize the most outstanding climate achievers. And she will urge people to have their towns join the more than 600 mayors who have signed the US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement to advance greenhouse gas reduction goals through leadership and action.

Issuing new "Energy Independence Bonds": In order to encourage broad citizen participation in the effort to move toward energy independence, Hillary will direct the U.S. Treasury to issue new "Energy Independence Bonds," a limited-series of U.S. Savings Bonds. A large-scale, sustained advertising campaign will promote the Bonds, similar to the way war bonds were promoted during the Second World War. She will enlist community teams of volunteers to encourage people to reduce their carbon footprint and spend their energy savings on these Bonds. Hillary will set a goal of selling 50 million bonds over 10 years and will invest the proceeds in energy efficiency and renewable energy projects in communities across America through the Strategic Energy Fund.

RESTORING AMERICAN LEADERSHIP IN SOLVING INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHALLENGES

Hillary knows that the U.S. has to lead the way in addressing climate change, but she also knows that this is a global problem that requires a global solution.

Leading the Development of a Post-Kyoto Treaty: The Kyoto treaty is set to expire in 2012, and Hillary would act quickly in 2009 to restore U.S. leadership in the global warming arena by playing an active role in developing the post-Kyoto treaty.As a guide to the treaty, Hillary would propose a science-based goal to limit global warming to levels needed to avoid the most catastrophic consequences of climate change. She would re-engage in negotiations, work to bring rapidly developing nations like China and India along, and convene high-level meetings every three months with the goal of getting a new deal in place by 2010, two years ahead of Kyoto's expiration.

Establishing an "E8" to Speed Global Action to Address Climate Change: Hillary would invite the G8 nations and key developing countries to join the United States in establishing an "E8." This group would be comprised of the world's major carbon-emitting nations, and would hold an annual summit devoted to international ecological and resource issues -- global warming foremost among them. The E8 would not be a substitute for the United Nations effort to forge a global climate agreement, but rather would streamline negotiations among major emitters and would serve as a catalyst for the larger effort. The group would include the United States, Canada, Mexico, the European Union, China, Russia, Japan, India, South Africa, and Brazil.

Promoting Reforestation and Slow Deforestation Worldwide: Deforestation, particularly in tropical countries, accounts for twenty percent of annual global greenhouse gas emissions. Unless concerted action is taken, emissions reductions from industry could be replaced by accelerating emissions resulting from deforestation and the reduced capacity of forests to absorb carbon dioxide. Hillary would work to set more rigorous standards to ensure that offsets produce real carbon reductions. Hillary would also pursue debt-for-nature swaps, and would pursue trading incentives and penalties to reduce illegal logging in developing countries.

Taking Steps to Increase Energy Security: In the near term, the security of the U.S. and the global economy depends to a great extent on the uninterrupted production, shipping, and consumption of oil. To protect American interests and reduce volatility in the oil markets, Hillary would: reform the International Energy Agency to allow consuming states to more effectively pool intelligence and consumer power, and work to bring China and India into the International Energy Agency, so that we can better stand up to OPEC and encourage states other than Saudi Arabia to develop swing capacity -- the ability to adjust production up or down to address price volatility.

OPERATIONALIZING THE PLAN

Establishing A New Focus in the White House: Hillary believes it takes much more than a good plan to move us towards energy independence and address global warming. That is why she has a clear plan for developing and implementing her policy proposals. She will create a National Energy Council modeled on the National Economic Council and the National Security Council. This new body will bring together disparate agencies in the federal government to put everyone on the same page and ensure that we all have the same priorities -- much like the National Economic Council does for the economy. The National Energy Council would be headed by a National Energy Advisor who reports directly to the President, and who is charged with coordinating the implementation of Hilary's energy and climate agenda across the Executive Branch. This body will convene representatives from every government agency in order to drive towards achieving the goal of 80% reduction of global warming pollution by 2050. For the first time, the Secretaries of Education and Agriculture, for example, will be deeply involved in meeting our energy efficiency and renewable energy targets. Hillary will use this body to break down bureaucratic barriers, encourage cross agency collaboration, and regularly reinforce that this issue is a top priority for her Administration. In addition, Hillary will focus the Department of Energy (DOE) on the challenge of transitioning from a carbon-based economy to a carbon-free economy. Hillary will choose a Secretary of Energy who both understands the traditional responsibilities of the DOE and can lead us to a clean energy future.

AN ECONOMY TRANSFORMED:

At Least 5 Million Clean Energy Jobs Over the Next Decade

Hillary believes that by transitioning from a carbon-based economy to a green, energy efficient economy, we have the potential to unleash a wave of private sector innovation and create at least 5 million new jobs from clean energy over the next decade. But it will only happen if we deploy the strength of America's entrepreneurs, our capital markets and the commitment and resolve of our citizens.

Hillary's plan lays the foundations of investment and incentives to encourage private sector innovation that can move us toward this jobs goal. The U.S. has an opportunity to lead in the development of new green technologies, creating new companies, spin-off enterprises, and entrepreneurs who are creating wealth while moving us toward a carbon free future. Hillary's plan will help catalyze an efficiency revolution in buildings, homes, appliances and utilities; spur rapid growth in the domestic renewables industries; and invest in energy innovation and R&D, all of which will drive productivity and additional job growth. And her plan will help the private sector create "green collar" jobs -- in research and development, manufacturing, construction, engineering, consulting and a variety of other areas -- that will help ensure strong growth of America's middle class over the next decade. Hillary's goal of at least 5 million new jobs over a decade is well within our reach, considering:

Recent Studies Suggests Dramatic Job Growth Potential from Energy Efficiency.

Energy efficiency is the cheapest, cleanest, fastest way to reduce energy consumption and energy costs. Hillary's plan lays out an ambitious agenda to make this "fifth fuel" of energy efficiency a first priority -- by changing the way utilities do business, catalyzing the green building industry, enacting stricter appliance standards, and phasing out incandescent light bulbs. A recent study by University of California Berkeley found that efficiency improvements drive innovation, productivity growth and consumer savings. Within an overall framework of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and transitioning to renewables, the benefits from efficiency improvements could help create more than a million new jobs in California alone over the next ten years. [U.C. Berkeley, Economic Assessment for Climate Action in California, 2007]. Based on conservative assumptions, this study suggests that the nationwide benefit from efficiency gains could help create well over 5 million jobs over a decade. Other studies that have analyzed the direct job impact from efficiency investments, find that the benefits would be substantial:

* Catalyzing a Green Building Industry: Hillary's commitment to modernize 20 million homes, improve building efficiency through the Green Building Fund, and update the federal building stock will encourage the creation of more than 500,000 private sector "green collar" jobs. [Apollo Alliance, 2004; National Association for State Community Services Programs 2007]. Many of these jobs will be entry level construction jobs in America's inner cities. In addition, Hillary's Connie Mae program will expand private investment in energy efficient homes and buildings and help expand this burgeoning sector. The scale of this market is impressive -- half of all new buildings in 2030 will have been built after 2000.
* Green Jobs from Updating Our Energy Grid: Hillary's smart-grid programs have the potential to catalyze significant private investment in modernizing our outdated energy grid. Such investment would create new jobs and drive efficiency improvements as well. This could help create more than 400,000 private sector jobs over a decade. [Apollo Alliance, 2004].

Transitioning to Renewable Energy Sources Can Drive New American Manufacturing and Create Millions of New Jobs.

A recent study by the University of Tennessee found that our economy could create about 2 million jobs from clean energy over 10 years if we get on a path to produce 25% of our electricity and motor fuel needs from renewables by 2025. [University of Tennessee, 25% Renewable Energy for the United States By 2025: Agricultural and Economic Impacts, November 2006]. In addition, strengthening U.S. manufacturing in renewables will help create jobs from accelerated exports. A recent study found that "a renewable energy industry servicing the export market can generate up to 16 times more employment than an industry that only manufactures for domestic consumption." [Environment California Research and Policy Center, Renewable Energy and Jobs, 2003]. The export potential and related job benefits are substantial in a global renewables market that is projected to grow from $55 billion in 2006 to $226 billion in 2016. [Clean Edge, 2007]. Finally, supporting energy-intensive industries will help them remain competitive in a green economy. According to one study, an appropriately designed increase in fuel efficiency standards could help create about 240,000 new jobs in the U.S. - including 24,000 in the auto industry. [Union of Concerned Scientists, Jobs, Energy, and Fuel Economy, 2007] In addition, Hillary will use a portion of the auction revenue from the cap and trade program to provide tax benefits to energy-intensive industries.

FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE PLAN

The total federal cost of the tax incentives and investments in Hillary Clinton's plan is approximately $15 billion per year -- or $150 billion over ten years. This includes $5 billion per year from the Strategic Energy Fund, which is financed internally by a windfall profits fee and removing special tax breaks for oil and gas companies. Hillary will finance the remaining $10 billion per year without increasing the deficit by dedicating $2.5 billion in additional savings from closing loopholes for oil and gas companies and dedicating a portion (about $7.5 billion) of revenue from the cap and trade auction.

End the 741 exemption for PV.

What's a 741 exemption? You can't expect me to read that article. I'm at work.

RobertInTucson

I haven't escaped from reality. I have a daypass.

Eric Blair,

are you saying that the 179 exemption should go, and you have to amortize/depreciate all equipment purchased for business use. From 3 years on very few items, usually 5 -7 years.

I doubt you have every run or owned a business Eric. Especially in these times when something goes out of date like, computers, hard drives, software, and equipment that just will not flat out last 5 years when used regularly. Eric I have to purchase new software and other cards on a regular basis from one to two years, and the old ones are shelf material. The switch from Standard Def TV to HD, is a real headache right now, with lots of new equipment that needs to be purchased. My industry and many others have the exact same demands from customers for the newest and best, or they go elsewhere.

If 179 were to go, the corporations would run all, because the little guy could not compete,

but I think you like that idea Eric.

The depreciation schedule for business? If someone made me dictator, I'd make businesses use cash accounting. You get to write off a piece of equipment when you actually pay for it.

RobertInTucson

I haven't escaped from reality. I have a daypass.

Presumably PV means personal vehicles.
The great majority of strip mall stores that aren't money laundromats are tax dodges. Like the lawyers or whatever that set their kids or wives up in a cookie business that makes $3 a month in profit from the one non english speaking minimum wage employee but is good enough to write off the 60K monster SUV.
There is a reason many of these vehicles are so huge and have a 6201# GVWR. The tax code.
It would take a forensic accountant 10 minutes to prove this if regulators would do their job. Hard to see from ivory towers.

I thought PV stood for photovoltaics. We wouldn't wanted businesses generating their own clean electricity.

RobertInTucson

I haven't escaped from reality. I have a daypass.

My line of thought was that if it were photovoltaics and the business were legit, then it would be viewed as a good thing and it wouldn't make sense to repeal the tax credit.

I know for a fact that people use these tax dodges in vast quantities and it is one of the reasons why the super heavy vehicles are so popular. They can be depreciated much quicker then lighter vehicles. If this tax credit is repealed the number of oversized vehicles would fall like a rock. The tax code drives a lot of what appears irrational.

If you add the millions of one person LLC's that write all these vehicles off, you could get rid of them in very short order.

I guess we need to wait for clarification.

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p946/ch02.html#d0e2211

you cannot elect the section 179 deduction for the following property.
Equipment that uses solar energy to generate electricity, to heat or cool a structure, to provide hot water for use in a structure, or to provide solar process heat, except for equipment used to generate energy to heat a swimming pool.

Thus you can not write down PV in one year, unlike other items.

Do you have a point you'd like to make? I do not understand your complaint about software costs. Why would anyone buy software?

Buying support on software, I can understand. But pay for software that is defective by design?

Why would anyone buy software?

Because not all valuable software is free.

But pay for software that is defective by design?

Because not all non-free software is defective by design.
And, sometimes, defective software is the best there is, and is better than nothing.

You sound like you're parroting the standard anti-Microsoft line; there's a world of non-free software outside of Windows and Office.

Because not all valuable software is free.

Huh? What are you trying to say?

And, sometimes, defective software is the best there is, and is better than nothing.

Having nothing or having something that is broken and defective, and you are claiming that it is better to use a broken tool?

Interesting view - that one should pay for crap.

You sound like you're parroting the standard anti-Microsoft line;

You just keep taking a swing and missing in this thread. 1st on small business, now this.

Why would anyone buy software?

Because not all valuable software is free.

Huh? What are you trying to say?

I'm answering your question.

People buy software because they find pieces of software which (a) have value to them, and (b) are for sale. Not all pieces of software are both (i.e., software might not have value and/or might be free rather than for sale), but for many people software exists which is indeed both.

And, sometimes, defective software is the best there is, and is better than nothing.

Having nothing or having something that is broken and defective, and you are claiming that it is better to use a broken tool?

Sometimes, yes.

A few years ago, used OpenOffice's spreadsheet to do some statistical analysis. It had some bugs in it that were irritating, but did not invalidate the result, and hence using it was better than doing the calculations by hand.

Or, for a more visceral example, consider a hammer with a broken handle. It's cleaerly a broken tool, but I'd certainly rather use that to try driving in a nail than use my hand. Broken tools are often better than no tools at all.

Interesting view - that one should pay for crap.

Interesting view, but not my view, suggesting you've misunderstood what I'm saying.

All I'm saying here is that if a piece of software's value is greater to a person than its (total) cost, it makes sense for them to use it. If that's not true - if, for example, it's so buggy as to be practically useless and is quite expensive, then my logic is that they should not use the software.

You just keep taking a swing and missing in this thread. 1st on small business, now this.

I suggest you re-read the thread, then. I haven't said anything about small business in this thread, so you appear to be somewhat confused.

Under the Modified Accelerated Cost-Recovery System (MACRS), businesses can recover investments in certain property through depreciation deductions. The MACRS establishes a set of class lives for various types of property, ranging from three to 50 years, over which the property may be depreciated. For solar, wind and geothermal property placed in service after 1986, the current MACRS property class is five years. With the passage of the the Energy Policy Act of 2005, fuel cells, microturbines, and solar hybrid lighting technologies are now classified as 5-year property as well. 26 USC § 168 references 26 USC § 48(a)(3)(A) with respect to classifying property as "5-year property" and EPAct 2005 added these technologies definition of energy property in § 48 as part of the business energy tax credit expansion.

Solar power equipment, including PV, gets accelerated depreciation. With the cost curve of solar PV, you might be hard pressed to get much for five year old equipment if you liquidated so this rule seems pretty realistic. I notice Walmart is putting in skylights. They get to depreciate these over 5 years as well.

Chris

But, don't you think you'd sell more if PV was not exempted under 179?

It is a difference of one or five years for businesses. You might see staggering if you had to do it all in one. I think what is holding solar back right now is manufacturing capacity. Most silicon production is presold by a number of years. Thin film is trying to fill in, and that works for businesses, but the residential market does best with silicon still. I think programs like those in NJ and CA are getting things going and there are prospects for faster build up of silicon production but right now it remains a seller's market. In five years we should see much lower costs and in another five years again, so I think the 5 year schedule makes sense.

Chris

How about these ideas?

Ban automobile (and other) racing....

Add governors to all cars to limit speeds to 65 MPH. Control them with radio signals to further limit speeds in local areas where speed limits are less than 65.

Ration carbon at the consumer level.

Raise taxes on the rich to pay off the Federal debit.

The claims for plugin hybrids have not proven yet, IMHO. Quit saying things like "plugin hybrids get 100 mpg" (or more), which ignores the primary energy required to provide the electricity consumed. Besides, if there is a massive switch to plugin hybrids, how much more electricity would be needed and where would it come from? Aren't you talking out of both sides of your mouth when you advocate reducing consumption of electricity? If the batteries and the rest of the electric drive are so good, why carry around an IC engine when it won't be used. The extra weight and complexity just increases energy consumption. what's wrong with a pure electric with enough battery capacity to go 100 (or more) miles between charges?

Just kidding, Hillary!! We love all you politicians!!.... :-)

E. Swanson

Besides, if there is a massive switch to plugin hybrids, how much more electricity would be needed

15%.

(At most. Current US power consumption is 4,000TWh; electric cars require about 200Wh/mi. At 200M cars in the US being driven 15,000 miles each, the need for electricity if all those cars were electric would be 600TWh, or 15% of currently-consumed levels.)

and where would it come from?

Wind.

(Standard models of the rate of adoption of new technologies strongly suggest that wind power will represent 10% of global electricity production by 2020, and can grow to at least 20% without requiring changes to the grid.)

why carry around an IC engine when it won't be used.

Range.

(People are used to being able to hop in their cars and drive for hundreds of miles, and would be loathe to give up that freedom. Of course, since they almost never do that, it would be cheaper to drive an all-electric vehicle and simply rent an internal combustion one for occasional trips, but the hit in perceived convenience is likely to outweigh the economics for many people until gas stops being so cheap.)

Are you seriously going to take what is posted on Wikipedia as ultimate truth for Wh/mile? Your Wikipedia link references this post;

http://www.werbos.com/E/WhoKilledElecPJW.htm

In which the author claims a 10 Kwhr battery would give a Prius a 32 km range. That works out to around 500 Wh/mile, not the 200 Wh/mile you present. That would bump your 15% up to 37.5% of present generation.

If you want to put people in small, slow GEM or ZAP or other vehicles, that might be OK, but these aren't going to do well on the freeway at 70 mph. Of course, the batteries are being improved, but the overall efficiency of motors is around 95% already, so the energy requirements aren't going to change radically. Also, there's the losses in distribution and charging which you ignore when you look only at the U.S. yearly electric generation.

Then too, one would expect that most of the charging would occur during off-peak hours, i.e., at night and wind power would tend to be a more-or-less constant source when the wind blows. PV is daylight only and is best used to match the current daytime peak, especially the A/C load in summer. There would likely be some need for storage within the electric distribution system, in order to move electricity from generation during daylight to the resulting night time peak. There's no easy way out, that I can see, although I think smaller vehicles would have a place, such as scooters and motorcycles with motors in the 500 w to 3 kw range. I've seen them auctioned on eBay already...

E. Swanson

Here are some more sources that show the wh/mile.

http://avt.inl.gov/phev.shtml
http://privatenrg.com/

You're right that 200wh/mi is not realistic for highway speeds, but it's not 500, at least not for cars. On the other hand I think Pitt the Elder was conservative by assuming 200 million vehicles.

As far as the ability of the grid to handle the increased load, it is more than capable. The grid we have right now could handle 84% of passenger vehicles if they were PHEVs.
http://www.pnl.gov/energy/eed/etd/pdfs/phev_feasibility_analysis_combine...

The advertising/consumer protection standards for the statement "10kwh" have not yet been formed . They may have been counting only the upper 5kwh in a battery chemistry which is not safe(=shortens battery life) to fully discharge, for example.

Are you seriously going to take what is posted on Wikipedia as ultimate truth

Of course not, but it has enough links to get you started. I didn't really think it was a controversial point, to be honest, so I didn't give much thought to supporting evidence.

I'll admit that I've only looked at straight-up EVs, since I find those more interesting than PHEVs. A government source with efficiency info for a variety of conversion-EVs suggests that 200Wh/mi is pretty reasonable. Their 1999 Ford Ranger EV, for example, takes 315Wh/mi of regular driving, but the regular 1999 Ford Ranger is 16mpg, so I take that as meaning it's safe to assume that a typical EV will require substantially less power per mile than that. Assuming a typical EV would be built like a typical 32mpg car, we might expect 150Wh/mi, but I figured 200Wh/mi would be a safer estimate.

It's not like it really matters, though - double it to 400Wh/mi, and it's still only a 30% increase in the size of the grid. Building those 200M cars is a far larger task than beefing up the grid (at $25k/car vs. $1.5M/MW, it's about $5T vs. $450B for the 30% increase).

Also, there's the losses in distribution and charging which you ignore when you look only at the U.S. yearly electric generation.

True, although those are only about 15% (~7% for distribution loss, ~7% for LiI batteries). They go into this sort of thing in much more detail in Tesla's blurb on their efficiency in comparison to other vehicles and engine types (linked from the Wikipedia page, I believe).

wind power would tend to be a more-or-less constant source when the wind blows.

Wind power's anything but constant; however, there's apparently no problem integrating a bunch of it into the grid - see the link to Jerome a Paris's article on that. If nothing else, there's quite a bit of already-existing hydro capacity in North America that could be used to buffer it.

PV is daylight only and is best used to match the current daytime peak, especially the A/C load in summer.

And, really, off-peak needs aren't much of a concern, so it's sort of moot. FWIW, though, solar thermal can provide power even at night via thermal storage (i.e., it gets stuff hot, and then extracting the heat for power takes long enough that by the time it'd have cooled down it's day again).

There would likely be some need for storage within the electric distribution system, in order to move electricity from generation during daylight to the resulting night time peak.

Doubtful - sometimes they're literally paying people to take it off their hands at night (although that's usually due to nuclear plants not wanting to shut down). Demand late at night falls to about 70% of peak demand, meaning there's already enough generating capacity in the system to power quite a large fraction of EVs, and adding their demand at night is likely to do little more than flatten out the demand curve.

At any rate, it's pretty irrelevant for the near future, as the large majority of electricity generation is going to continue to be nuclear and/or fossil fuel plants for decades, and those can be run at any time.

There's no easy way out, that I can see

The electricity requirement is really not at all hard to deal with. A much bigger problem - literally an order of magnitude larger - is replacing the cars. Compared to that, dealing with the power needs is peanuts.

The electricity requirement is really not at all hard to deal with

Right. And that's true even if you do not have a big nuclear component, because the generation is more or less established technology. The electric vehicle issue is a whole other matter. The battery technology is just approaching the point where it might be viable but we really have to hope that we continue to have significant progress with it. We also have to hope that it will scale and we not have some bottleneck like a shortage of lithium. Replacing the entire vehicle fleet of 900m vehicles is going to require completely new products from all the manufacturers and adoption could be slow. A large percentage of the people that now have personal transportation will probably be left out for a generation or so. Finally, high speed charging stations everywhere is going to require a lot of new grid infrastructure.

The "government source" you referenced (which was also pointed to by SensibleEnergy) does give data for efficiency. For example, the GM EV1 test data indicated a range in the driving cycle of 78.2 miles and efficiency of 164 Wh/mile, which sounds great. As I recall, when these cars were run on the road under real conditions, they didn't do that well, perhaps less than 50 miles range. So, they were likely doing about 200 Wh/mile, as you suggest.

The late night demand is usually provided by baseload generation, while the intermediate and peak loads have been provided by more expensive generation, such as gas turbines, since the cost of the turbines is less than the nuclear plant, but the fuel is more expensive than uranium. Adding more baseload generation would likely mean more coal or nuclear, not wind or PV, as the wind and PV may well not be available at that the time of need. Hydro is already about maxed out and is a small fraction of the present total. If there were a switch to electric cars, the cheaper off peak power rates would likely become a thing of the past.

Actually, I don't think replacing the car fleet would be such a big problem, as the half life of a car is on the order of 8 years and most of the miles driven happen when the cars are newer. If all new cars were electric, after 10 or 15 years, most of the driven miles would be done with the electrics (or PHEVs).

E. Swanson

Hydro is already about maxed out and is a small fraction of the present total.

I'm not sure what you mean by hydro is "maxed out", nor am I sure where you're getting that information. Certainly, it's being aggressively used to respond to demand surges, effectively transferring generation capacity from off-peak times (at night) when power is cheap to peak times.

It's not at all clear that that usage pattern could not be adapted to a higher nighttime load, though. Instead of pulling in cheap nuclear power at 3am, the dams could pull in wind power on an as-available basis, and then discharge it as needed. Hydro currently provides 7% of the US's electricity, so it should be able to do quite a bit of buffering and time-shifting for the 10-15% hypothetically sourced from wind.

If there were a switch to electric cars, the cheaper off peak power rates would likely become a thing of the past.

Quite possibly. Doesn't seem like a problem, though.

Actually, I don't think replacing the car fleet would be such a big problem, as the half life of a car is on the order of 8 years and most of the miles driven happen when the cars are newer. If all new cars were electric, after 10 or 15 years, most of the driven miles would be done with the electrics (or PHEVs).

Well, I'm just talking in terms of the raw bulk of the problem - how much manufacturing would be required to actually accomplish it. That's more of an issue in a hypothetical "crash program" to replace cars, such as you might find in one of the more pessimistic oil decline scenarios, and it sets a sort of lower bound on the time needed to solve the problem.

In a scenario where oil supply declines more slowly - which is, based on the data I've seen, more likely - you're right that natural rates of replacement can account for a lot. Even once a commercial EV/PHEV hits the mainstream market - which I think will be several more years at the earliest, although I can think of three reasonable contenders slated to come out within the next 3-4 years - there's still the adoption curve. Regular hybrids were introduced 10 years ago and are still only about 1% of the market. All things being equal, it'll take a long time before EV/PHEVs are a large fraction of the miles driven.

Of course, it's unlikely all things will be equal. Of course we expect higher gas/petrol/diesel prices, but also battery technology is significantly better now than it was 10 years ago, and either one of those could push adoption of new car types substantially faster.

My comment regarding hydropower being maxed out refers to the well known fact that most of the good sites for large dams have already been taken or the land for the lakes built upon. There are opportunities for small scale hydro, but those don't have the storage potential. Hydro at present represented about only 0.29 Tw out of the 3.74 Tw of commercially generated electricity in 2006. I suspect that most of that production was used to meet the peaking portion of the demand, thus shifting hydro to off peak at night would only exacerbate the problem of meeting the daytime peak demand.

More likely would be the need to build more baseload coal or nuclear generation to increase the base load supply. Actually shifting electricity from daytime to nighttime requires some form of storage, such as pumped hydro or batteries and that would need to be in addition to the batteries in the vehicles, since the charge/discharge times would be different. Making better car batteries will not change the electric consumption per mile much, as weight is a secondary factor behind aerodynamic drag at highway speeds. The energy required to push the mass of the car up a hill is recovered to some degree as gravity pulls the car down the other side of the hill.

Getting back to Hillary's program, the time period is so long that anything could happen, but there is no mention of Peak Oil, so those of us on TOD are thinking of a much different future. The recent history of the adoption of the PHEV's is not illustrative of a future where energy costs are expected to be high and to climb further after Peak Oil. IF we really do enter a period of severe fuel shortage, all will change and a crash program to build vehicles that do not run on oil would be expected to be part of such a change. The Chinese are already building many variations on the basic electric vehicle and they are already exporting these. I'm thinking of purchasing one and also a PV panel to charge it, just in case the doomers are right and TSHTF in the worst way.

E. Swanson

I suspect that most of that production was used to meet the peaking portion of the demand, thus shifting hydro to off peak at night would only exacerbate the problem of meeting the daytime peak demand.

The thing is, you say that a problem with PV is that it produces power only during the day, and then you say that storing daytime power for night would make it harder to have enough daytime power. It seems like those problems, to a certain extent, cancel each other out.

Making better car batteries will not change the electric consumption per mile much, as weight is a secondary factor behind aerodynamic drag at highway speeds.

Weight's a primary factor. I posted a link here a while back when the Tesla Roadster was extensively discussed, I'll see if I can dig it up again, which discussed the link between weight and gas mileage - it was something like 3% for 50lbs for a normal car. A 1000lb battery pack, then, can make a huge difference, as can some of the technologies that are being tested right now that aim to lower the size to 500lb for the battery pack.

Of course, there's no way the battery technology can make more than a factor-of-two difference, and even that much is unlikely - 30% is probably as much as we can hope for in terms of lower power consumption, but I think better batteries will mostly be used to extend range instead, so I think maybe 10-15% efficiency improvement on current designs is the best we can consider.

The recent history of the adoption of the PHEV's is not illustrative of a future where energy costs are expected to be high and to climb further

Absolutely, which is why I personally think that business-as-usual predictions for the adoption of technologies like PHEVs, EVs, wind, and solar are likely to be lower bounds, and adoption rates will be much higher in more fuel-constrained scenarios. Which will be exactly when higher adoption rates are needed, of course.

That's one of the reasons I'm not terribly worried - the technical capacity to fix these problems exists already, and all that's lacking is the motivation to do it. A sharp drop in available oil would provide that motivation, and - since the sheer manufacturing bulk needed to solve these problems is surprisingly small - that's likely to result in those solutions being enacted. It'd be less pleasant than solving the problems more slowly over a longer time, of course, which is why I think oil supply is still an issue.

The thing is, you say that a problem with PV is that it produces power only during the day, and then you say that storing daytime power for night would make it harder to have enough daytime power. It seems like those problems, to a certain extent, cancel each other out.

Well, for one thing, PV produces electricity in proportion to the amount of sunlight falling on the cells. This varies with the cosine of the angle relative to the normal to the cell array. If the PV cells are mounted facing south (in the NH) with some appropriate tilt, the output will reach maximum at local noon. The output will drop off on either side of local noon, however, the peak in A/C demand may follow the temperature, which usually continues to rise for a few hours after noon. The daytime consumption in industry might be a 8 AM to 4 PM for a single shift, or it might be extended for other shifts. The commercial sector might be expected to run from morning until the closing of stores, often around 9 PM. Meeting the varying demand requires that the source be variable and able to respond to the full range of load. On cloudy days, PV will produce little, while local wind might generate more during frontal passage and perhaps none under sunny, high pressure weather conditions. As always, the problem with renewables is load matching.

As for the impact of weight on fuel mileage, consider that the typical gasoline powered car has no renewable braking to capture the kinetic energy as the car is slowed. The ability to recycle this energy is one of the major advantages of a hybrid or EV. That's why the Prius is said to produce better mileage in city driving than on the highway. If there were no losses in the braking process, added weight would have almost no impact on mileage. Of course, there are losses both in acceleration and during braking, which would reduce the savings from recycling. At the very least, there is an internal resistance in the battery pack, controller and wires and heavy braking would result in large currents.

E. Swanson

The output will drop off on either side of local noon, however, the peak in A/C demand may follow the temperature, which usually continues to rise for a few hours after noon.

From the looks of it, peak demand is at about 3pm. That plot's from September, though, so summer peaks might be different, but I think mid-afternoon's pretty reasonable to assume.

As always, the problem with renewables is load matching.

Yup. Based on Jerome a Paris's article and a study done for a US state (Minnesota, I think) that I read and linked a week or so ago - both of which conclude that 20% of power could come from wind without difficulty - I'm not terribly concerned. You're certainly right that there will be problems that have to be solved, but - based on those sources, although I don't remember the details of either - I assume those problems are solvable with currently-known techniques and are not unreasonably difficult. That might not be the case, of course, but - basically - I'm deferring to the opinions of those who've studied the issue a lot more than I have, and I haven't seen any evidence of sufficiently serious problems that I've felt the need to go back and re-read the sources in light of the new information.

FWIW.

If there were no losses in the braking process, added weight would have almost no impact on mileage.

Hmm - good point. Not all EVs have regenerative braking, though - one of the groups making a serious run for mass-market EVs in the next few years (linked from here but I don't remember the name, alas) mentioned in an interview that they weren't sure whether they were going to include regenerative braking yet, simply due to cost and weight issues. At any rate, that's a detail that won't make-or-break the feasibility of EVs.

Projections are for electricity demand in the US to grow by 30-50% by 2030, so the added demands of EVs don't seem like much of an issue. It'd certainly be nice to see the EIA's projection be wrong in their energy mix, though - they have the proportion of coal rising from 50% to 57% and wind from 0.4% to 0.9%.

It's possible wind will exceed that projection next year, though, as the 0.4% figure is from 2005, and installed wind capacity will have almost doubled since then by the end of this year, with ~20% of additional capacity already under construction.

Wind.

(Standard models of the rate of adoption of new technologies strongly suggest that wind power will represent 10% of global electricity production by 2020, and can grow to at least 20% without requiring changes to the grid.)

Back to this again. How many turbines would be needed to be built to supply that?

Richard Wakefield
London, Ont.

No one is ahead of their time, just the rest of humanity is slow to catch on.

As many turbines as it takes.

RobertInTucson

I haven't escaped from reality. I have a daypass.

How many turbines would be needed to be built to supply that?

The information's all in the link I gave.

10% of global generation - assuming it grows from 18,000TWh currently to 26,000TWh in 2020 and assuming 2500MWh per year per MW of nameplate capacity (25-30% capacity factor) would require 700,000 1.5MW turbines.

At about $1.6M/MW (src), that's $1.1T. To put that in perspective, that's about 2% of current world GDP, and about 15-20% of current world yearly manufacturing output - about the same as the yearly production of cars (70 million cars x $15k/car = $1.1T).

Assuming manufacturing capacity grows as it has been (~3%/yr), building those wind turbines will require about 4% of the level of manufacturing that will be devoted to building cars over that period, and about 7% if manufacturing capacity doesn't grow at all.

So, on the face of it at least, there's no major hurdle to this trend being realized.

10% of global generation - assuming it grows from 18,000TWh currently to 26,000TWh in 2020 and assuming 2500MWh per year per MW of nameplate capacity (25-30% capacity factor) would require 700,000 1.5MW turbines.

If you could build 10,000 per year (you'd be lucky to build 1/10th that per year) would still take 70 years to build them, by which time the demand for power would increase 4 times today's, so you would need to start the 2 times the 700,000 now, which would take 140 years to build. You can't build them fast enough to meet the demand.

Richard Wakefield
London, Ont.

No one is ahead of their time, just the rest of humanity is slow to catch on.

If you could build 10,000 per year (you'd be lucky to build 1/10th that per year)

That you believe something does not make it so. The world is already building more than 10,000 wind turbines per year.

The technology adoption rate model that gives 10% global wind power in 2020 doesn't see wind turbine construction rising above about 2% of world manufacturing output - details in that link - so there's no capacity-based constraint on that trend being realized.

You might have some luck looking into shortages of key materials - although not much, since my understanding is that wind turbines don't use much in the way of rare components - but throwing up an absurdly low number of turbines, claiming it's impossible, and then claiming it's not enough is a great example of the Straw Man Fallacy.

You can't build them fast enough to meet the demand.

Care to provide some tiny shred of evidence to back up that assertion?

That you believe something does not make it so. The world is already building more than 10,000 wind turbines per year.

That's not a fair comparison. The numbers quoted for the output was for the US ONLY, thus the US would have to build 10,000 per year on it's own. How many in the US are being built today? To make 700,000 in ten years would require 200 per day built, transported, erected and fully operational. Even in 20 years to make the target would require 100 per day every day from nothing to fully functional. Never happen.

Richard Wakefield
London, Ont.

No one is ahead of their time, just the rest of humanity is slow to catch on.

That is not exactly from nothing. The current estimate is that 4 GW of wind generation will be installed in the US during 2007. This is about 60% year-on-year growth.

Chris

That's not a fair comparison. The numbers quoted for the output was for the US ONLY, thus the US would have to build 10,000 per year on it's own.

Actually, what he said was:

10% of global generation - assuming it grows from 18,000TWh currently to 26,000TWh in 2020 and assuming 2500MWh per year per MW of nameplate capacity (25-30% capacity factor) would require 700,000 1.5MW turbines.

The numbers quoted for the output was for the US ONLY

You are mistaken - the calculations were done for 10% of world power generation.

Indeed, "10% of global generation" were the first 4 words of the paragraph that contained the number "700,000", so I don't see how you could have missed that fact.

How many in the US are being built today?

About 2,500 this year, based on the 4GW of capacity added.

To make 700,000 in ten years would require 200 per day built, transported, erected and fully operational.

The specified timespan was 13 years. The maximum number built in a year was in the last year (of course), with 114GW = ~75,000 turbines installed worldwide, or about 5x the number installed this year. That works out to 200 per day.

For comparative purposes, the world made about 70M cars last year, or about 200,000 per day.

Based on their relative prices ($2M vs. $20k), a turbine is about as difficult to make as 100 cars, meaning that the world output of cars is already 10x the level that you think is impossible.

Never happen.

Any time you're interested in backing up your wild assertions with even the tiniest shred of evidence, feel free. Repeating your opinion over and over isn't going to accomplish anything useful, though.

I agree the wild assertions are kinda out there.

It is like saying the United States Interstate system could not be completed in the time it has been. Nor could the Man on the Moon have happened. Nor could the west have been conquered by rail.

The United States can do it we have proven we can tackle crazy outlandish problems. We just need to bust out what they usto call in grade school "thinking caps" and get our ducks in a row.

Manufacturing is not hard. Mass production is not hard. Hell if we have to fix the problem by bringing bus loads of mexicans from mexico and say HEY!! come work legally and make turbines so be it. But we must help them in return too!

I am serious here main reason? Mexicans are willing to go anywhere in the USA possible to make money. Give them the job get it done.

No I am not being the slightest bit racist about this it is a legitimate way to get massive amounts of workers in short period to a location. However if we dick around we will end up with millions of americans that can do it due to no jobs.

In the end its up to do we want to preserve our way of life?

Way to make everybody absolutely hate you, for negligible impact.

The vast majority of driving is at less than 65mph. The amount of gas burned on the difference is negligible, even if the reduction in mpg is measureable. Invading people's cars in such a way and telling them what they can and cannot do would be political suicide. Even places with a much more developed green movement like Europe scarcely governs their cars below 120mph.

The amount of gas burned by auto racing is also negligible, and there have been moves to mandate ethanol usage there anyway (greenwashing, but whatever).

Rationing carbon on the consumer level? How exactly? Are you going to send a bureaucrat to measure the duration of every campfire, check the mileage in every car, and record how many packs a day you actually smoke?

The federal debit?

The sweet spot in transition vehicles (while we're still trying to get use out of our old houses/jobs/roads/gasstations) is a serial hybrid, whether with a big battery pack or a small one - powered by a small gas/CNG/LPG/diesel engine that can average the load over long period of time and shut itself off when it's not needed. In order to be honest in labelling, these need to be labelled with an all-electric range and an all-gasoline mileage (never charged). One number does not suffice. They will be practical from about 2009-2029.

----------------

Taxing energy is an effective strategy to make sure we don't consume so much damn energy. It buffers economic panics if raised steadily, and it makes buying that slightly-more-expensive hybrid a rational economic decision backed up by total cost of ownership rather than an irrational spiritual one backed up by your memory of the last fillup, fuzzy feelings about the planet, and tax writeoffs. It ensures that people will strive, innovate, TRY to reduce their energy use, because it saves them money. You opt-out of higher bills via effort, rather than opting in to various petty government programs on specific issues.

Giving that tax back to citizens (in equal amounts) annually makes sure that the government's motivations are not obscured by dependence on an income source. It ensures that it is a progressive, not regressive tax - hitting the rich high-energy users much more than the poor low-energy users. It gives people money to pay their energy bills, and it tells them that if they don't use that much, maybe that vacation in Bermuda is doable after all. It even provides benefits for achieving citizenship - and reduces the pull that the American economy exerts southwards. The rational economic choice to become an illegal immigrant is lessoned, because they know that the paycheck they send home is that much less, since it costs that much more to live here.

The majority of driving is urban stop and go and at less than 40mph.
The cars driven to the race track outnumber the cars on the track as much as 1000:1. Don't know the miles driven by race fans to and from races but for major races the average could be over 100 miles.

Lots of places to hang thoughts about racing associated with the ban comment above. Here is my draconian prescription for reducing ICE usage:

$2,000/liter tax on each and every liter above a base displacement of 1.0 liters for new sale and a $1,000/liter tax on any resale.

Exempt any vehicle thirty years old - keeps the car collectors who survive what is coming on the sidelines. Exempt any motorcycles - can't piss off the 1,800cc Harley crowd, and vehicle price will deal with that problem, such as it is. The truck and van exemption would be a little different - perhaps a base displacement of 3.0 liters, but it has to be working vehicles. No, your Dodge Durango hauling the kids to soccer does not count.

Cancel all racing and the NASCAR fans will go nuts. You want to see PO reach critical mass? Do something ... anything ... and have it get in the way of rednecks turning left, and you're going to trigger an insurrection.

Shorten the straightways. Tighten the curves. Reduce displacement. Require biodiesel fueled vehicles. There are many ways to keep the excitement and get people moving the right direction.


NASCAR

I expect NASCAR to become a post PO religion of sorts ..

Triff ..

One reason for my comment about banning racing was that those "sports" are the most popular in the U.S. in terms of spectators. It's the spectators I would like to stop, as I feel their travel to and from the races uses a large amount of fuel that is not producing anything other than short term excitement. And the spectators are part of a culture of speed and power which tends to promote the purchase of vehicles with excessively large and inefficient engines, not to mention, the massive gas guzzling RV's. NASCAR is at the heart of the V8 gas guzzler myth of eternal gasoline and killing NASCAR would be somewhat like St. George slaying the dragon.

That said, I've done my share of fast driving, mostly in smaller, "sports" cars and once worked on an SCCA race car that made it around the track at Daytona. Curvy mountain roads are still lots of fun for me driving a 1800cc Acura. But remember, this plan is intended to reduce CO2 emissions by 80% as of 2050. That's going to take a whole lot of sacrifice and Mr. Joe Sixpack is going to hurt as much as everyone else. Given the economic impacts of the vastly higher fuel prices which this cap-and-trade plan will produce, Old Joe may be out of a job too. Of course, the rednecks would want to revolt, but, without the fuel to get around, how could they? Are they going to jump on their horses and attack Washington? Well, maybe... :-)

E. Swanson

I'm sorry, but you sound like Mao - an assumption of might=right, and a casual disregard for people's actual desires, in favor of your personal ideology which knows what's best for the people - which does not stand up to scrutiny. You're ignoring the potential that anyone could have a negative response - which a totalitarian dictator can afford to do only because they have so many assassins.

Your rationale is that because people drive to entertaining events, we should eliminate entertaining events. This extends far beyond car racing.

A culturewar is the last thing you want here. You can have symbolic gestures which tell people that the sport they love is evil, to try and make them hate driving; Or you can have practical measures to reduce fuel consumption that people notice as little as possible.

Introducing a 4US$ gas tax would be simpler, I think.

Also cheaper & more effective.

You can use the money to invade Canada or any other country of your choice ;-)

$4 per gallon at 400 million gallons/day (9.50 million barrels) would "only" raise $584 billion per year - nowhere near enough to fight a proper war.... ;-)

$4 per gallon at 400 million gallons/day (9.50 million barrels) would "only" raise $584 billion per year - nowhere near enough to fight a proper war.... ;-)

If we use nukes, it would be cheaper. Whoops, scratch that idea - nuclear weapons destroy infrastructure. We don't want to damage the oil wells and pipelines, just eliminate the (non-American) people who own them.

Chemical and bioweapons would be much better. And what about the neutron bomb? Haven't heard anyone talk about that in years.

P.S. This memo is classified "Top Secret." Not for release to the news media.

Introducing a 4US$ gas tax would be simpler, I think.

Also cheaper & more effective.

True, but you have to admit that's a political non-starter. Everyone in Congress would lose their job the next election if they voted for a $4 a gallon gas tax.

Unless you count all the tax-paying adult citizens, divide the money you collected up into equal portions, and hand it back to everybody at the end of the year.

See my post on how it would possible to enact it

Introduce a $0.25/gallon gas tax increase effective at the first of each month coupled with a $0.25/hour minimum wage increase at the same time. Do this for twelve months.

Any revenues raised must be used for rail electrification and other transit efforts. No more road building, no more tax breaks for auto manufacturers, this is life or death and BAU means death.

Fix parking policy. Encourage parking "cash-out" policies, reduce required off-street parking, and market-based street parking. All in Shoup's excellent book, "The high cost of free parking".

Policy on Nuclear and biofuels is unfortunate, but probably politically necessary in this climate. Laws are like sausage, you don't want to know how it's made.

Michael Perkins

The plan itself can be found here. It reads remarkably like the energy platform that the Green party in California has been pushing over the past few years.

The real question is to what extent she's actually committed to implementing this plan, and to what extent it is a bunch of nice words. If there's real commitment, and an ability to move congress, its a nice start.

Presidential election season means the candidates all come up with what they're going to do as Legislator-In-Chief, and the pundits and the populace believes the new President will pass all sorts of laws.

But it is Congress who enacts laws. And Congress doesn't have any plans.

There are actually mechanisms already in place by which the executive branch could, if it really wanted to, force cuts in CO2 emissions. A good strategy would be for the EPA to make a finding that CO2 emissions at the current rate are going to change water pH, and thereby cause the extinction of endangered fish species. At that point, the EPA would presumably have the ability to issue emissions rules.

I'd prefer to see congressional buy-in, because I think we could achieve a more effective plan legislatively, but I suspect that we'll still have 40 senators opposed to any kind of legislative solution in 2008.

Silence,

I thought you were going to mention Mass. vs. EPA where the Supreme Court decided this year that EPA has (and has always had) the authority to regulate Carbon Dioxide as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.

Using the CAA regulations to cut carbon could be one of the most effective ways, as it would potentially require metro areas to cut back on freeway/road expansion, invest in mass transit, and adopt smart growth land planning in order to reach transportation conformity for regional transportation plans.

Of course, you would need an EPA to set the standard for C02 low enough so that the local yokel air planners and state DOT's couldn't constantly point to pie-in-the-sky techno-fixes as justification for spending billions on new freeway lanes.

That's a good point. It looks like we've already got executive authority to treat CO2 as a directly regulated gas.

That is crap.

OK, the water pH will change and your scientific backing is correct, but that just isn't going to cut it, as its just a sneaky end run attempt around the massive corruption in Washington.

If we do not deal immediately and forcefully with corruption in Washington the outside world will. This is already writ large in the OPEC countries' decoupling of currency and the Chinese unwinding their dollar reserves. We're bankrupt and we have a choice of a fruitless chapter 11 downward spiral or a quick, violent chapter 7 style liquidation.

I am sad for the individuals who are losing their homes and livelihoods because I know how that feels, but I am glad for a hopefully critical mass of pissed off voters who are about to get schooled on peak oil and climate change the hard way.

Lots of chatter on here about Blackwater this and repressive that, but if everyone outside disdains us for the massive fraud of the mortgage scam and everyone inside is looking for the source of their pain I don't see how the nascent police state the Bush administration has configured will survive. Its an ugly thing to contemplate, but if We, The People can't clean it up in situ, we're likely to burn it down and start over.

Who cares? $15 billion a year starting in 2009? Big whoop.

We spend that much in one month on our overseas neocon utopia (empire).

Most of us will be dead in 2050. I'm not even sure about 2025, but i'm sure my chances are better than those of the average 60-something energy CEO. How about some MILESTONES! Do you mean 1.9%/yr every year? Then say it.

I agree. The plan is full of targets for 2050, 2030, 2025, etc. I'm glad she has a plan, but there are going to be 10 Presidential terms and 19 congresses between Hillary (if she wins) and the year 2050, and she can't commit for any of them. It would be much better to see a plan that states what we will do between now and 2013.

Hillary wants to reduce our carbon emissions 80% by 2050. My son wants to be a race car driver. Both of these statements draw a little smile and a "Thats nice, honey, now finish your vegetables" from me.

The politicians know what is coming, just like executives at a bankrupt company know what is coming - they look at the P&L, they look at the balance sheet, and they know the judge in Delaware (or the court of world opinion) is about to end up in charge. They posture and bluff, hoping that they are the ones who survive the cut. The most political are, of course, the biggest reason the enterprise has failed in the first place, because politics unbacked by profit is worse than useless.

Everyone here knows that we probably don't have forty three months to adjust, let alone forty three years. I think we're lucky in one sense - the ARM scam is definitely going over the top in time for the 2008 election, peak oil may very well do so also (we'll only know in retrospect), and the fickle AGW might just get in its licks, too.

Things are going to change and change dramatically by 11/2008. There won't be any more wiggle room for denial. Right now we're a quiet, urban pill popping stay at home mom of a junkie, but we're going to be a $10 sexual favors hanging at the bus stop long sleeves in the summer to cover the needle marks junkie by the time the next election rolls around. There won't be any way to hide the effects and the people will be pissed.

We might fight like Monbiot's housecats, but we'll do so after we blame (and punish) our leaders for letting this terrible situation occur ... especially leaders like the Bush administration, who will be viewed as the source of the problem rather than the solution due to their oil industry ties.

Good one. Your stay at home mom analogy reminds one of JHK's rants.

You know it would be really sad if we can't get a president like Hillary to commit this country to long term beneficial change. No one has stopped the current administration from taxing my unconceived grandchildren to death.

Nothing could be more effective at improving fuel economy than a $4/gal gas tax. Can a really good politician find a smooth talking way to achieve the same results through industry subsidies and penalties for not meeting CAFE milestones? Maybe...

But then again, perhas a really smooth talking politician can use the bully pulpit to sell the idea of increased non-renewable energy taxes to the American People in exchange for reductions in income taxes, major expansion of mass transit, and possibly energy aid for the working poor.

For the past 7 years the pulpit has been used to discredit anthropogenic global warming and peak energy. While the phrase "Addicted to Oil!" did spring forth from the pulpit, the subsequent policies were less than lip service.

"Increasing production of biofuels to 60 billion gallons by 2030"

How do they plan on doing this without causing massive starvation? Ethanol may be the biggest scam of all.

"Increasing production of biofuels to 60 billion gallons by 2030"

How do they plan on doing this without causing massive starvation? Ethanol may be the biggest scam of all.

Maybe that is not in the "offical" plan...

Richard Wakefield
London, Ont.

No one is ahead of their time, just the rest of humanity is slow to catch on.

A very positive plan, though of course there are many details to be worked out, such as the timetable for increased CAFE standards, 1.5 mpg/year, for example.

This was needed 25 years ago...

CAFE standards are politically expedient, but they are horribly inefficient. CAFE only addresses new cars on the road, not the millions of old cars. Nor do they do anything to the power plants or factories that spew CO2.

I do some work with the Auto Alliance so obviously I'm against swift and painful hikes, but there are better solutions.

I say phased CAFE hikes that are only slice of a larger pie.

Precisely, that's why I said "such as". CAFE alone won't do it, though doing it without CAFE means using heavy carbon and/or gas taxes. It's clear that CAFE helped in the past, until it was loopholed and frozen.

Right, so let's do CAFE, but let's enact a system where cars and trucks are separated. Lumping a Mini Cooper that is good for Manhattan and a Ford F-150 that is good from Montana into one category makes no sense.

That's what this debate is about. Trucks should have a different category so that the automakers don't have to compromise the weight and horsepower that millions of American depend on.

And if you're thinking, "why does a soccer mom need an Expedition?" She doesn't. But ranchers needs F-350's; small business owners need vans.

The Hill-Terry bill is the best solution!

>And if you're thinking, "why does a soccer mom need an Expedition?" She doesn't. But ranchers needs F-350's; small business owners need vans.

Yes, but the vast majority of light trucks are driven by people who don't need them, so lump all vehicles in the same categories. Light trucks can still be built, because very few people would really need them. Those who buy them needlessly would be considered wastrels (and that attitude is certainly already growing, but it would accelerate when they would be percieved as taking trucks from people who needed them).

Or, we could tax fuel to a point where the cost of the stuff becomes a major part of total cost of ownership. And people who don't need the F-350 would magically migrate away from using it - including the people driving a 15 year old F-350 who want to get more life out of it to save money.

"She also knows that Americans have always demonstrated the will and the ingenuity to confront the problems of their times, from the New Deal, to the Cold War, to the Space Race."

I guess she DID inhale. Perhaps in the past we confronted tough problems, not anymore in today's America. Just look at the war in Iraq, we have practically outsourced it. Very few in America (outside of military families and Blackwater employees) are making ANY sacrifices due to this war. We are so far behind the 8 ball on doing anything about PO that I doubt these actions would do much more than soften the crash for a select few.

It's a start, but I am still waiting for a candidate to address PO and discuss the deep sh*t we are in.

Very few in America (outside of military families and Blackwater employees) are making ANY sacrifices due to this war. We are so far behind the 8 ball on doing anything about PO that I doubt these actions would do much more than soften the crash for a select few.

Incredibly and exactly correct.

Defence spending as percentage of GDP

Relative military spending

There's two graphs I want right now, but I can't find, in this format to distinguish branches.
Active duty military size
Active duty military size as a percentage of population
from 1900-2006.

Typical politician's plan. Lots of goodies, no sacrifice. No gas tax or carbon tax to pay for it. No 55MPH speed limit. CAFE increases are too far out to matter. No recognition of the inevitable conflict between high fuel economy and safety. I'll probably vote for her if the lesbian arab spy rumor doesn't destroy her campaign, but I will hold my nose.

"sf," I agree that this is a typical politician's plan. What does CAFE actually do to curb CO2 in the millions of old cars or in power plants or factories.

CAFE is a relic of the 1970's.

Then it is time to dust off the relics. CAFE worked. It cut fuel usage dramatically. And that is what we need. Check out Stuart's post here on using fuel efficiency to survive peak oil.

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/12/17/1377/0132

In just a decade or so oil imports will be half what we currently have. Automakers that are not built around selling small highly efficient vehicles will become historical examples of failure to plan ahead. Automakers are getting a golden platter in this proposal (tax credits to sell new cars, help with health care costs, funds for factory retooling). They should take it and run.

Jon Freise
Analyze Not Fantasize -D. Meadows

Also wanted to draw your attention to our candidate profiles, which attempt to lay out point-by-point what each candidate has pledged, or indicated he or she might do. It's updated with Hillary's new plan, so you can see how she stacks up.
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/Candidate-Profile...

Shapattack blogs for The Daily Green.com.

Ive been reading theoildrum for 2 years now and I choose to post my first comment on this seemingly run of the mill article. So why do I think this article is so interesting? Its this:
"* Cut foreign oil imports by two-thirds from projected levels by 2030"

I read this and something triggered in my mind, I stopped for a moment amazed and a little stunned. The united states doesn't choose to cut oil imports because they are afraid of political instability in the middle east. I can think of only one justification for why the US would do this. Those in power know the oil isn't going to be available for import in 2030. They are going to pretend that they are in control of the situation by telling us that they are choosing to cut oil imports. They dont have a choice, they know it and they are afraid to tell us.

And notice it's not cutting current levels 2/3, it's cutting projected levels 2/3. So if the projection is we'll be importing, say, 3 times what we are now, meeting this goal would mean we were still importing the same amount as we are now.

Which or course isn't going to happen unless there is a lot more oil out there than we think there is.

it's not cutting current levels 2/3, it's cutting projected levels 2/3.

Projected imports are about 16Mb/d, so a 2/3 decrease would cut imports down to 5.5Mb/d.

When you compare that to current import levels of 13Mb/d, it's clear that the proposed reduction is actually fairly significant.

Surely this is still a good thing though? Cutting down on projected levels is still cutting down, whatever way you look at it.
LoveTheConstitution.com

Cut foreign oil imports by two-thirds from projected levels by 2030

If you believe that Peak Oil is happening now, and particularly that peak exports have already occurred, isn't this outcome likely to happen whether the government takes action or not? Such reductions are not something that we're going to do voluntarily; they will be thrust upon us. Now we have to cope.

The fear is that they'll be thrust on us suddenly and chaotically by market interpretation of current events. If a major oil exporter were to suffer a coup by people who thought it would be wiser to save their oil for internal consumption, oil could double overnight. If a shooting war erupted between the arabian peninsula and Iran, oil could triple overnight. If the situation (and the price) persists for a year... we could see law and order start to break down.

Speculators on a resource which is destined to appreciate significantly tend to vastly boost the price of the resource - which is where the market is going - to a longterm appreciation/price equilibrium on an investment, rather than on a daytrading commodity.

Of course, gas prices in the UK would only increase by a small amount, because so much of it is stable, manipulatable taxes.

They dont have a choice, they know it and they are afraid to tell us.

BINGO!!! You got it. There is no way they don't know. You can bet the CIA and the Pentagon have thoroughly planned for what's coming, they plan every other possible scenario. How could they miss this???

Richard Wakefield
London, Ont.

No one is ahead of their time, just the rest of humanity is slow to catch on.

Spencer here has it right - ... they are afraid to tell us.

The American people are zombies now - television, psychotropic drugs, and the constant feel good brain chemicals from consumption of all sizes. When we buy something ... anything ... it triggers the same reward effect a Capuchin monkey gets when it works a lab puzzle and receives a grape for its efforts.

The puzzle is already hard and its about to get a good deal harder. The prize for most of the primates lucky enough to have a puzzle in their cage will be a tasteless, low nutrition cracker, while 20% will have no puzzle within reach.

No one in a visible position of power is going to say anything until the entire country is shouting it at the top of their lungs. The conditions we face today regularly bring down governments and they know it ...

Even if it is just a load of nice words, it will at least raise awareness of the need for such action.

Carbon trading is the biggest ripoff in the history of the world. It is the next scheme by the sons of Bulan. WW3 is the lesser evil compared to the Hillabeast.
There only are two choices, either Ron Paul or Kucinich. Throw all incumbents out and outlaw political contributions.

I've been thinking for awhile now that my belief of democracy in this country could actually be renewed if the general election is Paul vs Kucinich.

Don't get too pumped up and go all mushy on us now. First, think about how likely that really is to happen before you get excited about a political systemic event that would be on par with the rapture.

The fantasy continued, despite reality check: either would probably serve to unite Congress against him! They might even take away some of the presidential powers that have accumulated. It would be fun to watch.

I don't think there is much question about the fossil fuel crisis and the danger to humanity. I also think that the climate is warming, at least for now, but I think there are some serious questions in identifying the cause.

So in the case of the warming, should we be addressing this as a problem at all? If the cause is natural cycles rather than man made CO2 then what good will expending some of our precious remaining energy to control CO2 emissions do? I agree that if it can be determined that CO2 emissions are the cause, then it is within the realm of government authority to prevent others from using the air as a dumping ground for a "dangerous" gas.

On the issue of finding solutions to the energy depletion problem, I think that this is not within the authority of government to act other than to make choices about how they use energy in carrying out their other activities.

Government is force. If they use this force in the market place, they destroy freedom. History has shown that when government runs the market the results are not good. The failures of the Soviet Union and Eastern European economies are examples. Because politicians are making decisions about what you want and need, the answer is just as likely to be bad as good, maybe even more likely to be bad. You don't need to look farther than the involvement of the US government in ethanol to see the waste of precious existing resources on something that probably consumes more fossil energy than the green energy produced.

I hope that solutions to the fossil fuel depletion problem are found. My judgment is that we are much more likely to see solutions come from individual and private organization efforts than to see solutions come from government and the special interests they support. This is a time that we need more freedom, not more (slavery) fascism and socialism. The government will need more of your wealth to implement the solutions it chooses, which means that you will not have that wealth to implement your own solutions. If you can't now afford to do what might help you weather the storm, how are your going to be helped by giving your money to politicians in Washington, only to have them keep a good portion of it and then spending the rest on "helping" you survive the energy crisis?

I have little doubt that those of you who are begging for the government to do something will get your wish. When has a politician ever not taken the opportunity to gain more power over you or more of your wealth? They will all gladly offer you their solution, just as Hillary has. I just think that you are likely shooting yourself in the foot, and supporting even greater human suffering by being pandered to.

I concure completely with all you said. Good post. Though I expect you will be jumped on, but I agree with your view of GW.

We certainly are in a dilemma because we want to be free, have fought and died to be free, yet the freedom is counter to forcing people to do what needs to be done. It’s going to be interesting because on its own oil depletion is going to dramatically cut into people’s freedom, and that is something they will not take sitting down.

Richard Wakefield
London, Ont.

No one is ahead of their time, just the rest of humanity is slow to catch on.

I don't want to jump on these sentiments but am disappointed that there are still so many people that fail to understand the relationship between the level of scientific certainty of anthropogenic climate change and the consequences of not acting.

It is also amazing to me how closely correlated this viewpoint is to blind faith in some mysterious market system. Try actually reading Adam Smith sometime instead of quoting someone who quoted someone who read the first 10 pages. National economies are human artifacts, not naturally occuring phenomena. They operate, if at all, under a set of rules made by a government. They only operate for the benefit of those whom the government creates the rules to benefit.

Unless you involve the government it doesn't matter how clever or creative you are. The end result of real free markets is dictatorship by the least principled.

I don't want to jump on these sentiments but am disappointed that there are still so many people that fail to understand the relationship between the level of scientific certainty of anthropogenic climate change and the consequences of not acting.

Because there are still too many holes in AGW theory. The first big hole is when it was announced that the science was settled on AGW. As soon as I read that alarm bells rang. Nothing in science is settled. NOTHING! That statement smells of dogma not science.

The next biggest is that the rate of sea levels rise has not changed in the past 100 years of measuerments. Until that rate starts to increase I'm remaining skeptical.

Second, we can't stop the CO2 emissions save the collapse of civilization. Cut all you want in the US, sequester all you want, as long as India and China swamp any efforts elsewhere we are wasting money, time and resources on an effect we cannot change even if we are causing it.

Besides, AGW doesn't matter. Oil depletion is going to produce the drop in CO2 you want anyway.

Richard Wakefield
London, Ont.

No one is ahead of their time, just the rest of humanity is slow to catch on.

Nothing in science is settled.

Nonsense.

Lots of things are settled, even though it's always possible they'll be shown to be false later. Dynamics was pretty settled until Einstein came along and replaced Newton's laws.

Science is not all-or-nothing, and it's a mistake to treat "the science is settled" as an all-or-nothing statement, at least when it's coming from scientists. The IPCC report deals in probabilities; the concern is that the probabilities are very high.

The next biggest is that the rate of sea levels rise has not changed in the past 100 years of measuerments. Until that rate starts to increase I'm remaining skeptical.

Australian researchers found that sea levels rose by 19.5cm between 1870 and 2004, with accelerated rates in the final 50 years of that period.

Finding that took literally 3 seconds.

we can't stop the CO2 emissions save the collapse of civilization. Cut all you want in the US, sequester all you want, as long as India and China swamp any efforts elsewhere we are wasting money, time and resources on an effect we cannot change even if we are causing it.

It's terribly ironic (and kind of sad) for a Canadian to take such a US-centric definition of "we". Some of us view "we" in a rather more global sense, and that "we" has a lot more control over the problem.

Besides, AGW doesn't matter. Oil depletion is going to produce the drop in CO2 you want anyway.

Perhaps you've heard of this "coal" thing all the kids these days are talking about? More CO2 per btu than oil, but there's lots of it? Tempting source for energy if oil's too expensive?

(And don't give me "Energy Watch Group report". They have serious methodological and factual flaws, in the "2 minutes with their oil report turned up factual errors that were obvious, easy to document, and literally more than an order of magnitude" kind of way.)

Lots of things are settled, even though it's always possible they'll be shown to be false later. Dynamics was pretty settled until Einstein came along and replaced Newton's laws.

Then they arn't settled then are they? A theory MUST be falsefiable. As long as a theory is falsefiable it is not "proven" or "settled". It may have a high degree of acceptance of being a correct model of reality, but nothing in science is settled. That's the realm of dogma.

Australian researchers found that sea levels rose by 19.5cm between 1870 and 2004, with accelerated rates in the final 50 years of that period.

So what? That would have to happen EVERYWHERE around the world but it is not. Look at the measurments around the world in Tide and Currents example http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8... Even the last IPCC report noted that there has not been a change in the rate of rise.

The problem with just using one (and there are some where the sea level is FALLING) is that techonic activity affects the level. You can't just point to one location and claim the whole world is changing by that value.

It's terribly ironic (and kind of sad) for a Canadian to take such a US-centric definition of "we". Some of us view "we" in a rather more global sense, and that "we" has a lot more control over the problem.

Then I'll change it. Those who want to reduce CO2 will be swamped by those countries that will keep increasing their CO2 output. Hence it is a loosing battle. The next IPCC report should confirm that.

Perhaps you've heard of this "coal" thing all the kids these days are talking about? More CO2 per btu than oil, but there's lots of it? Tempting source for energy if oil's too expensive?

And that's is my point. Once oil goes into depletion there will be more use of coal as people will demand that to stay warm and cook their food. Once their standard of living drops, people won't give a rats ass for the environment as survival will be the only thing they care about.

BTW, there's no need to be condesending.

Richard Wakefield
London, Ont.

No one is ahead of their time, just the rest of humanity is slow to catch on.

As long as a theory is falsefiable it is not "proven" or "settled"

Obviously, I disagree with your definition of "settled". And since your definition puts you in disagreement with thousands of scientists and mine does not, I think you're wrong.

That would have to happen EVERYWHERE around the world....You can't just point to one location and claim the whole world is changing by that value.

"The research, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, used data from tide gauges around the world."

You didn't even read as far as the second paragraph in the article. Are you trying to ignore information that shows you're wrong? And do you honestly think that your eyeballing of a curve for a single location and saying "looks linear to me!" is at all convincing?

Even the last IPCC report noted that there has not been a change in the rate of rise.

You obviously don't bother reading links that show you're wrong, as the one you were given - and not just by me - said:

"Although climate models predict that sea level rise should have accelerated, the scientists behind this study say they are the first to verify the trend using historical data."

So it's hardly surprising that a report which was six years in the making doesn't leap onto cutting-edge research the moment it's done.

Plus, at this point, I don't believe you without references. Where does the IPCC report say there has been no change in the rate? Remember, not saying there was a change is very different from saying there was not a change.

Those who want to reduce CO2 will be swamped by those countries that will keep increasing their CO2 output. Hence it is a loosing battle.

Only if you believe that human behaviour cannot change. As that's clearly false - take a look, for example, at global action on ozone-destroying chemicals - your assumption is known to be false, rendering your conclusions irrelevant.

And that's is my point.

Then you might want to proofread a little, since it's the opposite of what you said.

Once oil goes into depletion there will be more use of coal as people will demand that to stay warm and cook their food.

Ahh, yes, the "stay warm" and "cook food" sectors of oil consumption. It's not like those account for a trivial fraction of oil use. Or can be trivially supplied by electricity. Which can be easily generated from all kinds of sources, including, say, wind.

I'm always pleased to convert a skeptic:

The rate of sea level rise has been increasing. The current area of study is understanding the stability of icesheets. Low stability implies about 5 meters of sea level rise this century while higher stability would limit the rise this century to about a meter. No matter which is correct, we get to 25 meters of sea level rise eventually.

With regard to India and China, should the US take serious steps to cut emissions and these two countries do not follow suit, then trade policy provides some leverage.

As pointed out nicely by Dave Rutledge, oil depletion does not change the emission scenarios much. It is all about coal. However, his coal depletion model seems to be subject to a downward revision of the tollerable amount of total emissions.

Hope this helps,

Chris

The rate of sea level rise has been increasing. The current area of study is understanding the stability of icesheets. Low stability implies about 5 meters of sea level rise this century while higher stability would limit the rise this century to about a meter. No matter which is correct, we get to 25 meters of sea level rise eventually.

Read the report. These are PREDICTIONS based on their computer models. The measurements appear to be just to 2001, and as you can see from the tide and currents website, the rate fluctuates around a mean.

So far the T&C measurments world wide does not show a change in the rate. And if I want to dig, and I will after my week away, I can find references, refereed references, that will cast confusion on how the sea level is actually measured and put doubt in these predictions.

With regard to India and China, should the US take serious steps to cut emissions and these two countries do not follow suit, then trade policy provides some leverage.

Hold on to your seat, the US is rapidly losing it's position in the world. China is about to dump some of it's $1.2 TRILLION in US cash it has for more "stable" currencies. China is rapidly becoming the de facto world super power. US threats will mean nothing soon, heck already does in much of the world.

As pointed out nicely by Dave Rutledge, oil depletion does not change the emission scenarios much. It is all about coal. However, his coal depletion model seems to be subject to a downward revision of the tollerable amount of total emissions.

If we are headed to a monumental population crash where those that survive will have a much reduced CO2 footprint then CO2 emissions will drastically drop. You are looking short term. I'm looking more long term > 100 years. Besides, as I noted, once the economic crash starts due to depletion, and people are freezing, they won't care about their CO2 footprint.

We are wasting valuble time, energy and money worrying about trying to fix something that is unfixable. It's akin to those on the Titanic debating about putting a bigger rudder on the ship with the berg in sight.

Richard Wakefield
London, Ont.

No one is ahead of their time, just the rest of humanity is slow to catch on.

Please look closely at the data, the wiggly blue line. People who are unfamiliar with science sometimes don't have an eye trained for diagrams. As methods of measurement improve, the variations in the data (sometimes) reduce so that more recent data sets don't stand out to the eye in a diagram. As you will see, the rate of sea level rise is increasing. Thus, since this is the criterion you set to be persuaded, you need no longer worry. The effect is real.

Chris

Yes, please look at the data, particularly the straight black one. http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

How does that look to your trained eye?

Very nearly identical to the blue data in the initially posted figure. The rate of increase appears to be the same. There are a number of coincident excursions of the same magnitude in both repesentations. The ranges are slightly different with your link (redisplayed here) showing more recent data. Richard's claim was that the rate of sea level rise has not changed in the last 100 years. In fact it has increased as these date help to demonstrate. Apprently, from his reply, he did not notice the data, only the fit and thought that it was a model.

The long term trend is 2 mm/year while the present rate is 3.5 mm/year. Richard's objection is answered and he can now move from being a skeptic to provisional acceptance. Personally, I would not base my assesement on this since sea level is not the most sensitive indicator, but he appears to have this as his final criterion.

Chris

You certainly can't say that there has been any acceleration in the last 13 years. It is interesting to note that the conclusion that the rate is increasing comes from comparing data obtained two different ways, while each individual method does not show the increase or only moderate increases. For example, in the link Pitt the Elder provided, is says:

"Over the entire period from 1870 the average rate of rise was 1.44mm per year.

Over the 20th Century it averaged 1.7mm per year; while the figure for the period since 1950 is 1.75mm per year. "

It is also interesting to look at the change in sea level due to natural variation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

Chi-by-eye, I think I could get some level of significance for a two line fit to the data you linked to. As I said, sea level rise is not particularly sensitive. It is delayed by the ocean mixing timescale. Changes now are expected to be moderate since a substantial fraction of the effect is thermal expansion, the delayed portion. Richard was waiting for one last thing, so I provided it.

Chris

China is about to dump some of it's $1.2 TRILLION in US cash it has

If by "1.2" you mean 0.4, then yes.

Been doing so for about half a year, actually. Brazil and the UK, among others, appear to be buying the US treasuries off them.

We are wasting valuble time, energy and money worrying about trying to fix something that is unfixable.

No, we just don't believe your assertions that it's unfixable.

As a matter of fact, the technical means to fix the problem are not all that hard - coal use could be phased out in a matter of years in favour of wind, solar, and nuclear, at bearable costs - and the only question is the will to do so.

So people who bleat that the problem is "unfixable" are just making it worse. To use your analogy, you're like a deckhand on the Olympic squawking "there's an iceberg, it's too late, we're all doomed!", and we're the captain saying "just shut up and turn the damn wheel, kid".

It seems to me that people look at the US economy and bash it as the failure of freedom and free markets as they witness the rape the majority experience at the hands of those in power.

The US economy is not a free market. It is a mix of some freedom, some socialism (government owned and operated organizations) and a lot of fascism (government control of privately owned property). When government passes laws about economic behavior that benefit the few at the expense of the many that is not free markets, but government controlled markets. The privilege granted to banks to loan new money into existence is a fraud on the majority, not free markets. Government licensing of drugs, occupations, and businesses is not free markets, but government controlled markets. Government subsidy of ethanol production is not free markets.

When you advocate government controlling the market for energy, what is produced and what is penalized, what is encouraged and what is discouraged or outlawed, who can get energy and who cannot, what your are advocating is just more of the same terrible system of plunder and control that has squeezed out free people making free market decisions.

I understand that fear of the future drives many people into the desire to give up their own freedom so as to be taken care of by some authority, but it does not work. All you get is people driven by the need for power taking power over you, to their and their friends benefit while pandering to your weakness.

If there are solutions, which I seriously doubt, they will come out of free minds, individual effort, and from risk takers working without the control of bureaucrats and politicians. Government will only magnify the problem and the human suffering.

Market controlled governments aren't all that jazz either.

Government is not a monolithical entity, nor does it only come in one flavor. Look beyond your borders and direct historical experience.
There is not a clear boundary between private and state organizations. And there is another, quite different, distinction: between for-profit and non-profit organizations. So you might want to broaden you vision beyond a simple dichotomy.

I agree that if it can be determined that CO2 emissions are the cause,

I have to ask, if you are not willing to accept the current well established scientific consensus on this issue as proof enough, exactly what further evidence will actually convince you?

exactly what further evidence will actually convince you?

Change in the rate of sea level rise. It would have to increase in rate by several orders of magnitude to get to the dire predictions. But there is no change in the rate. It's straight line. Until that changes I remain skeptical.

BTW, there is only proof in mathematics, in science there is collective evidence to make theories. There is no proof in science.

Richard Wakefield
London, Ont.

No one is ahead of their time, just the rest of humanity is slow to catch on.

That might be like listening for the sound of the crash to decide if you are driving too fast.

Here's an interesting, but elderly, paper indicating that sea level rise might not be a very good indicator today (1992) of the status of climate change:

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/mtsparker.html

Measuring rate of change in sea level increase is a really tough one as you are looking for second order effects on an already small signal. There are indications already though that the rate is accelerating, for example:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4651876.stm

I don't think most scientists expect a runaway increase of "several orders of magnitude" - I hope you're not setting the bar that high before you are convinced that humans are to a large extent responsible. That is certainly not the IPCC expectation.

As for the proof comment, I do understand the scientific method, having spent several years working as an astrophysicist. The IPCC reports are careful not to use words like "proof", but instead to talk about probabilities, which have been increasing over time as the evidence has firmed up.

As for the comment on it not mattering because oil depletion will take care of it, there is more than enough coal to take us well over the danger levels.

I don't think most scientists expect a runaway increase of "several orders of magnitude" - I hope you're not setting the bar that high before you are convinced that humans are to a large extent responsible. That is certainly not the IPCC expectation.

It is several orders of magitude from the current rate of 7" per 100 years when predictions make it several feet (20 according to Gore, the great GW Guru) in 100 years. Even a change to 12" in 100 years is a 2 times increase in the current rate and the IPCC upper number is more than 20" or 3 times the current rate. So the rate would have to change by several orders of magitude to get to the predictions.

The IPCC reports are careful not to use words like "proof", but instead to talk about probabilities, which have been increasing over time as the evidence has firmed up.

The latest IPCC report DECREASED their predicted change in sea level by quite a lot. And the IPCC laest report noted that there has not been a change in the rate.

Second, there is a huge difference between laymen's understanding of what "theory" is and the scientific use of the term. Laymen's "Theory" runs all the way from a highly unlikley ("its only a theory") to being confirmed ("It's proven"). Thus the public gets carried away with both concepts of theory to the point that they completely distort what the actual science says. It happens all the time, and not just with AGW theory.

The big question for those who claim AGW is "proven" or the "the science is settled" is what evidence would falisfy the theory? Is any of that evidence presently known? Is there a test that would make such evidence come to light?

If your answer is no, then that's dogma not science.

And there is far too much dogma propping up AGW theory, and people like Gore is one of the biggest abusers.

Richard Wakefield
London, Ont.

No one is ahead of their time, just the rest of humanity is slow to catch on.

Change in the rate of sea level rise. It would have to increase in rate by several orders of magnitude to get to the dire predictions. But there is no change in the rate. It's straight line. Until that changes I remain skeptical.

And uninformed, apparently.

Several orders of magnitude is 1000x, which would mean sea level would be rising two metres per year! If you thought the rate of sea level rise needed to change by "several orders of magnitude" to be a serious problem, what on earth did you think it was?

Several orders of magnitude is 1000x, which would mean sea level would be rising two metres per year! If you thought the rate of sea level rise needed to change by "several orders of magnitude" to be a serious problem, what on earth did you think it was?

No, your not understanding orders of magintude. The current rate is 7", if it increases to 14" that's one order of magnitude. If 21" that's 2 orders of magnitude (3 times). The dire predictions of meters in 100 years is thus several orders of magnitude in the change of rate.

Richard Wakefield
London Ont.

No one is ahead of their time, just the rest of humanity is slow to catch on.

Richard, please get a clue. I'm trying hard to remain polite, but why are you debating this in scientific terms when you don't even understand a concept as fundamental and simple as an order of magnitude? I find it pretty comical that you're lecturing me on what a scientific theory is, given such an basic lack of knowledge on your part. I was going to rebut your post above with a detailed response discussing error bounds, but I fear I would be wasting my time.

For your information, an order of magnitude is a factor of 10. So three orders of magnitude is a factor of 1000. Sheesh.

So very good, except for this one bit of long debunked denialist claptrap:

If the cause is natural cycles rather than man made CO2 then what good will expending some of our precious remaining energy to control CO2 emissions do?

There isn't any if left to this, except in the minds and public relations efforts of those who benefit from carbon exhumation.

Folks;
I gave Ms Clinton’s plan a gander, and for what it’s worth, thought I would post a few highlights with the addition of my own commentary. I would be keen to hear yours…

“Powering America's Future: Hillary Clinton's Plan to Address the Energy and Climate Crisis
“Hillary understands that we face two immense energy and environmental challenges: a growing climate crisis, and an increasing reliance on foreign oil that is driving up energy costs for Americans."

“Hillary understands…” I am immediately turned off by the PR tone of this. It’s not Senator Clinton’s plan or even Candidate Clintion’s but ‘Hillary’s’ plan. As though using the informality of just her first name makes it like she’s just another regular guy (or gal). No doubt some PR/political spinmeister came up with that, and this device is used extensively in this campaign document.

“Creating a Market-Based Cap and Trade Program, and Auctioning 100% of Greenhouse Gas Permits -- Hillary will establish a market-based "cap and trade" system to provide an overall framework for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”

From what little I know of cap and trade schemes (emmissions trading), it sounds like something that is legitimizes major polluting industries by giving them permission to pollute, with the minor inconvenience of having to pay for the priviledge. The idea is to gradually reduce the amount of carbon (GHG) credits available over time, but from what I know of politicians (whether it’s Ms Clinton, her husband, GW Bush or most others) is that this pushes the real issue of reducing GHG’s drastically and quickly to the wayside while allowing things to pretty much continue as they have. Indeed, it sound like more free market mojo.

“Modernizing the Grid for the 21st Century Using "Smart Grid" Technology: Our electricity grid is antiquated, resulting in costly blackouts, the overbuilding of generation capacity, and large losses in energy during transmission.”

And it’s going to cost an awful lot of money to upgrade it. Just who is going to pay for it?

“Creating a $50 Billion Strategic Energy Fund and Demand that Oil Companies Invest in Clean Energy -- In 2005, Exxon Mobil's CEO told Congress that his company's investment in alternative energy technologies over the prior decade was "negligible." Hillary believes it is time for oil companies to do their share in funding clean energy technologies. She would give oil companies a choice: invest more in renewable energy technology or pay into a Strategic Energy Fund. The Strategic Energy Fund would also eliminate oil company tax breaks and make sure that oil companies pay their fair share in royalties when drilling on public lands. This fund would jumpstart a clean energy future by injecting $50 billion over ten years into research, development and deployment of renewable energy, energy efficiency, clean coal technology, ethanol and other homegrown biofuels.”
50 billion large over 10 years, eh? And we spent close to half a trillion a year at DOD? Is this some kind of a sick joke?

“Increasing production of biofuels to 60 billion gallons by 2030: Home-grown biofuels can reduce our dependence on foreign oil and cut greenhouse gas emissions. Rapid growth of corn ethanol production capacity in recent years and emerging technology that will enable production of ethanol and other biofuels from a range of biomass sources indicate the potential of biofuels to displace a significant amount of gasoline.”

I’m sure Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill are loving that…

“Helping Automakers Meet the Energy Challenge: Domestic automakers face serious competitive challenges due to higher labor costs, older equipment, and higher health care costs than their competition.”
And as a result they are now in need of a massive government bailout…

“Establishing a "Connie Mae" to Help Homeowners Improve the Energy Efficiency of Their Houses: Builders often neglect to make energy efficient investments because they add to the purchase price, even though they save money down the road. “

As if the current housing bubble fiasco was bad enough. Now you’ll have the opportunity to get your house foreclosed, but at least it will be an environmentally friendly foreclosure…

“Improving Public Transportation -- Increased public transit usage is one of the best strategies for addressing the energy and environmental costs of transportation. For every passenger mile traveled, public transportation produces only a fraction of the harmful pollution of private vehicles: only 5 percent as much carbon monoxide, less than 8 percent as many volatile organic compounds, and nearly half as much carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxides. As President, Hillary will increase federal funding for public transit, including buses, light rail and subways, by $1.5 billion per year. She will also link federal public transit funds to local land use policies that encourage residential developments that maximize public transit usage and discourage sprawl. She will also invest an additional $1 billion in intercity passenger rail systems. Intercity passenger rail is an environmentally efficient alternative to highway driving and short flights; it relieves congestion on roads and airports; reduces the emission of automotive pollutants; and it stimulates economic growth by linking metropolitan areas.”

Please note, this is the only paragraph is dedicated to mass transit, while the vast majority of the paper is devoted to keeping the cars on the road and fuel cheap.

“INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY:
Reducing Demand and Helping Create Accountability for Change
Challenging Individuals, Schools, Colleges, and Communities to Help Our Nation Address Global Warming: In sharp contrast to President Bush, who after 9/11 asked only that people go shopping, Hillary will ask individuals to take action to prevent cataclysmic climate change.”

Not once is the phrase ‘Give up your SUV’ ever uttered in this piece.

In short, snarky comments aside, I would have to say it’s about what I expected from Ms. Clinton (or any other politician regardless of party affiliation). Her (their) faith remains firmly entrenched in market based solutions, demonstrating a truly rigid adherence to conventional orthodoxy, along with the idea that biofuels will save us. Indeed, she even mentions cellulosic ethanol and carbon capture as being the sort of thing that will allow us to continue pretty much along the same lines that we have, while seemingly oblivious to the fact that these technologies are not even past the experimental stage, much less have been proven to be commercially viable. The fact that she gives such sort shrift to mass transit and makes no mention of peak oil further demonstrates her complete cluelessness regarding the sort of energy future our society is staring in the face.

SubKommander Dred

Or, as has been mentioned, she knows but is afraid to come forward with the truth. That's my bet anyway.

Richard Wakefield
London, Ont.

No one is ahead of their time, just the rest of humanity is slow to catch on.

There is no substantive difference between Hilary Clinton and George Bush in regards to the challange the United States faces in supplying itself with the vast quantities of oil in consumes.

What irks the Democrats and many others isn't Bush's strategy of controling or occupying the Middle East's oil fields, it's his seeming tactical ineptitude in getting the job done properly!

Both leading Demorats, Clinto and Obama have stated that the see US troops on the ground in Iraq for many years to come. Both of them are hostile towards Iran as well. This is understandable as Iran is the last credible country which is still standing as an obstacle to American plans for the region. That means opening the region to foreign investment and rapidly accessing the vast and untapped reserves which are currently being underexploited.

That's why the Democrats haven't stopped the war in Iraq. They, like the Republicans don't really want to bring the army home anytime soon, because they agree with the basic stragegy outlined above - using military force, if necessary to get hold of the oil the US is so dependent on.

So one can see that a sort of energy concensus is developing in Washington between the "two" parties. What this means is using the US military to protect US access and control of the regions energy supplies. However, selling this strategy to the American people, let alone the rest of the world, requires a leadership with far more skill and subtlty than the current Whitehouse gang, and that's where Clinton and Obama come into the picture.

Wrong. The Democrats are not talking about staying in Iraq because they share Bush's strategy or objectives. They are talking about doing so because there does not appear to be a way of getting out without that so further destabilizing the situation that it would make it much worse than it is now. That's what a quagmire is. A situation where there is no good way out.

Both Bush and the Democrats share the idea that we will continue to rely upon the Middle East to supply us with oil. But the Democrats do not share the idea that to do so we need to exercise military control over the countries in that region. However, the Democrats understand that if we precipitously withdrew in this situation, forces will likely gain control over much of the region who will not want to supply us with oil because of what has happened in recent years. If Iran and the Shiites take over, America could be seriously starved of energy. The market cannot be expected to take care of us then.

Sterling,

I wish I agreed with you. It would almost be a comfort. Unfortunately, your partisan and political analysis, doesn't conform to the facts on the ground, or the statemensts of the leading protagonists in both the major parties. The US army will remain in the Middle East for the forseeable future. There are probably only three or four things that will change this situation, regardless of who takes control of the Whitehouse.

A mass, open revolt by the American people who've simply had enough of the political elite who run Washington.

The collapse of the US economy and finacial ruin, prefaced by a run on the dollar.

The victory of the Iraqi resistance and the defeat of the US army.

The US army leaves after the last barrel of Middle East oil has been extracted.

I tend to favour the last scenario.

Scenario #2 seems pretty well assured by the ARM scam. We're stretched so thin in Iraq any detailed article indicates #3 is a possibility. #1 will be triggered by either #3 or #2 coming to pass and woe unto the PTB if they happen around the same time.

Unless you can genetically engineer a virus that is triggered by the though patterns of the believers of Islam, the world's one genuine monotheistic religion, I think that #4 is quite out of reach.

The US army will remain in the Middle East for the forseeable future.

You do realize that that doesn't contradict what he's saying, don't you?

That the US army will be in Iraq for a while is not where you disagree; why they're there is the question at hand. You haven't offered any evidence for your assertion that all the leading politicians want the army there indefinitely as an occupying force; by contrast, 30 seconds with Google turned up this statement from the official Clinton-for-prez website:

"If President Bush does not end the war, when Hillary Clinton is President, she will."

As the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, Clinton surely must be considered one of the "leading protagonists" of the major parties. Your claim was that her statements didn't agree with what Sterling was saying, whereas, in fact, some of them verifiably do.

You may believe none of the politicians are saying they want to leave Iraq, but you're simply wrong, and anyone can verify that for themselves. If you still want to keep your biases, you might try changing to the belief that they're lying.

Pitt: I'm no expert on Hillary but she seems to talk out of both sides of her mouth on this one. She certainly does not clearly speak out against the Iraq war (like Murtha)-I think Hillary will literally say anything to get elected. She has also made vague threats against Iran (it is unclear which country she is actually working for).

she seems to talk out of both sides of her mouth on this one

Complicated situations do not lend themselves to simple solutions. The Democrats and most Americans want to get out of Iraq. The question is how? If we just pull out, the civil war in Iraq is likely to intensify, with the Iraqi majority Shiites trying to ethnically cleanse the Sunnis (or at least the Sunnis thinking that’s what’s happening) and the Kurds trying to form their own state. In this case the Saudis and other lower Gulf Sunni states would likely feel compelled to go in to help their Sunni brothers and the Turks would go into Kurdistan to prevent a separate Kurdish state encouraging their Kurds to join it. Then the Iranians would go into the Shiite areas of Iraq to help their Shiite brothers. Then the outside Sunnis and Shiites would likely come to blows with each other, i.e. war between Iran and KSA and their Sunni allies (could be most of the states west and south of Iraq).

Although the lower Gulf states have Sunni governments, several have large Shiite minorities, especially in the oil producing regions that happen to be close to the Gulf and Iran. If a Sunni/Shiite war broke out in the Gulf, virtually the entire oil producing area could be in the war zone and Shiite insurgents there could ally with Iran. With the reduction in oil production that would cause and the fact that we caused the mess, do you think the people there would still sell much of the remaining oil production that does come out of the region to the US?

This war has always been about oil even though the chronic liars in the Bush administration cannot admit it for political reasons. This has prevented us from talking about the real grand strategic consequences of the actions we take to end it. Of course we want to get out but it is not an easy question of how we do that.

Pitt,

I don't think I'm simply wrong, unsimply perhaps.

You're so pedantic and hawk-like about detail that you miss the big picture, or maybe you just choose to ignore it? The big picture is that this whole Iraq debacle was based on pack of lies to fool the American people into supporting, what is arguably the greatest crime in American history. It's certainly the most expensive. The unprovoked, illegal, bloody and destructive, invasion of Iraq.

The leading US politicians Republicans and Democrats are lying about Iraq. That's what they do professionally, for a living, they lie and obscure and screw ordinary Americans, over and over again! They serve the interests of the ruling-class, which they, almost to a man, are part of.

There are a few honest and truthful men in Congress, but they are in a tiny minority and divorced from power. On balance the Democrats are better liars than the Republicans. Bill Clinton was a truly gifted liar, unlike Bush who isn't. On balance, for the last fifty years or so, the Democrats have lied way better than the Republicans. Or perhaps I should say that the Republicans are better liars when addressing the domestic audience, whilst the Democrats are better when dealing with the world.

I predict that Hilary Clinto will not pull the army out of Iraq. She has already hinted at this. Obama has talked about redeploying the troops, not pulling them all out and bringing them home. Iraq's oil is way to valuable and important to leave unguarded. The army are building permanent bases in Iraq to control Iraq.

Of course if one could find some Iraqi traitor who was prepared to sell his country down the river and serve the US loyally, that would be simply super. But these assets have a tendancy to get ideas above their station, like hapless Saddam.

This statement you've found on Google is meaningless. What exactly does it mean? Does it mean she'll pull the troops out, or she'll send more, in order to win and thereby end the war?

Surely you don't actually believe what these politicians say do you? What possible reason could you have for doing that given their record?

Surely you don't actually believe what these politicians say do you? What possible reason could you have for doing that given their record?

I wonder about this regularly, having a number of friends who just won't give up on believing that the political system is somehow going to do something that evidence doesn't support.

I think it can only be explained as some version of a faith-based reaction to a situation in which all of the "data" seems to have nothing at all to do with the need to believe because, I guess, the alternatives are too uncomfortable or even scary.

Being a chronic democrat (or republican, or whatever) seems not much different to me than belief in benevolent imaginary friends in the sky. I guess, if anything, maybe it's slightly better grounded, since these politician friends are sometimes on the ground.

If Ron Paul is sworn in as Commander in Chief he can order troop withdrawal without consulting CONgress. Just like the globalists sent them in. He would have overwhelming support from most of the military at the highest levels, and he would have the support of a majority of the American people.

The fact that she ... makes no mention of peak oil further demonstrates her complete cluelessness regarding the sort of energy future our society is staring in the face.

Not really. Someone running for president, who has a real chance of accomplishing that, is not in a position to try to introduce the very controversial topic of peak oil. In doing so she might really convince many people at the almost certain cost of blowing her chance to be elected president. Right now, it is much more important for us for her to get elected president than for her to do that kind of missionary work. The missionary work is better done by people like Matt Simmons who has real credibility in the field of oil.

We would like to think that we could have leaders who could have such incredible powers of persuasion that they could turn around a super tanker like peak oil denial. Realistically, the best we can hope for is someone who is a bit better and more persuasive than the others she is competing with. If she painted the grim picture of peak oil and its costs for us, she would be painted as hopelessly pessimistic. People would vote for the candidate that had the more optimistic story even if that story is improbable. The Republicans have been winning elections that way for years.

Sterling;
Of course, you are absolutely right. It's much safer to tell the American people what they want to hear than to tell them the truth. I am a fool to think otherwise...

Maybe it's important for YOU to get her elected, but not for ME!

SubKommander Dred

Its a politician's job to put together a majority political coalition. If the people and the media are not ready for the truth, like with peak oil, trying to force it on them is not going to work. There is no virtue for a real political leader in taking some untenable political position just to prove how smart you are. That's not the job. It is the job of people like us to educate the public and the media. You are expecting the wrong kind of action from political leaders.

It is important to all of us that the best possible person gets elected president. It may be that neither you nor I knows who that is.

The Clinton-Bush Regime oversees a plan of "Kill Off" which benefits a few at the expense of the many.

Ethanol, hydrogen, nuclear, and "clean coal" are all "weapons of mass deception" used to placate the masses who want to believe that a strong parent -- omnipotent father or mother -- is in charge.

If we want to make a difference, we need to talk about the reality of our predicament.

The reality is that we've dealt a mortal wound to the complex tapestry of life that makes human life possible. If we are to survive,it will be by saving as much of the life that comprises this complex web as possible. This will require radical change and sacrifice from all of us. Anything less will simply get us to the Eremozoic Age -- the Age of Loneliness -- that is a few decades away at most. Our political system is designed to tell us that we can comfortably transition from our current way of life to a new life of ease and plenty without radical change or sacrifice.

The economic "winners" in the status quo will not allow the needed changes, because those changes will make them just like the rest of us.

Our political system serves the winners in our current system. Rape is the core cultural paradigm. We take what we want and kill and discard the bodies of innocent victims around the world. Hillary Clinton is as rapacious as GWB, anbd her message bears this out constantly.

We must kill people to maintain hegemony, especially in the Middle East: GWB and Clinton are alike on this. That is the real energy policy.

Biodeisel, ethanol, hydrogen, nuclear power and these other strategies are convenient ploys to covewr the basic plan: kill and drill. Kill people and other species at record rates in this Sixth Great Extinction, and to Hell with anyone who is not a part of the shrinking elite.

The irony is that we are all absolutely vulnerable. Those who consider themselves elite will trip on the tiniest, most unexpected and random obstacle. This is inevitable with an Imperial mindset.

The weak and small will survive, while the mighty stumble and self-destruct.

Sorry, but HC's ideas are no better than Guliani's when it comes right down to it. Both are slightly different variations on the theme of "Rape And Plunder" or "Last Man (sic) Standing" and will not come close to addressing the issues we need to address.

Our culture does not currently support any political discussion of reality.

New here, but an as time allows reader for awhile...I'm a farmer, and am very aware of the perilous edge of supply and demand we live on...and what a poor solution bio-fuels are. But in all the discussions here and in other places, I read very little of the analysis of the BTUs in infrastructure, and how close we are to the point of not being able to build a new infrastructure to utilize lower energy flows from renewables...no point in having a 150mpg car if the highways are too potholed to travel over...the interstates were built using $0.20 gal diesel and railroads with 19th century coal. The longer we wait to reverse direction the further back in the time continuum we will fall.

The lack of bitumen for asphalt and the energy cost of cement don't get a lot of play here, but when oil supplies are in a steady downward slide something has to give.

Now electrified rail is iron, wood for ties, and some cement in urban areas. It'll be funny if failing road maintenance stops SUVs before fuel prices do ...

...reduce electricity consumption 20% from projected levels by 2020...

So far as I can tell, this means don't reduce overall consumption at all. I'd be more impressed if it were a reduction from the current level. The democratic party platform generally lags the green party platform by about 8 years but at least you can tell they are listening. Since transportation is to be run on 60 billion gallons a year of biofuels in this plan, you'd think just a serious pass at building efficiency would give an actual reduction in electricity use. But it's not the results, it's the promise of jobs that make this plan. The next green party platform looks like it will oppose biofuels for just about anything except aviation and oppose short haul flights as well. At least this keeps a chicken in every pot, if not a drop in the tank. People who critisize greens for promoting vegetarianism should not be too surprised when democrats get it wrong and try to enforce it. There will be no livestock left at all once this gets done and just 7 dollars a pound potatoes left to eat. Jobs! Do you want fries with those fries?

Chris

I'd be more impressed if it were a reduction from the current level.

I disagree. There is no good reason that we should reduce electricity consumption. We should dramatically increase it because it is going to have to take over transportation. But we need to do it using sources that do not contribute to global warming (i.e. we must abandon coal). However she cannot advocate such a buildup because there does not appear to be a way that that can be done with the generation sources she is prepared to endorse.

I think you kind of misread my post. Her plan covers transportation with biofuels. So, there is no need for increased use of electricity in her plan. On the other hand, architectural changes can reduce electricity use much more than she is proposing so her proposal is unimpressive. Holding consumption constant while converting transportation to electricity would show a little spunk.

Of the sources she mentions, wind and solar appear to have the momentum to do more than she is proposing. Clean coal is untried and geothermal and biomass have limited growth potential.

Chris

I have not read the plan, but you know as well as I do that biofuels cannot scale to do the job with transportation.

As usual, you are avoiding the N word. Even though it is still too politically hot for a Democrat, no credible plan for the long term can do without it big time.

I agree that the reliance on biofuels lacks sanity. That's why I revived the Clinton era comment about job creation with a twist: Do you want fries with those fries?

I think that this year, wind beats nuclear on adding new generation. Continued 60% annual growth would see 15 GW added in 2017 accounting for capacity factor. By then we might possibly see 1 GW of new nuclear and perhaps -7 GW net change in nuclear. Seems like a losing proposition.

Chris

I agree that the reliance on biofuels lacks sanity

The Clinton plan is not an academic analysis of how to best address our energy problems. It is a political program mean to gain majority support. Right now peak oil awareness and nuclear power cannot gain majority political support of a coalition built mainly of Democrats. Without peak oil, maybe bio fuels will be enough to make up for the oil and gas that we will not use because of global warming and for energy security.

I believe she knows about peak oil because I recently saw a video where Bill talked knowledgably about imminent peak oil and I do think that they speak to each other. Once they can include understanding of that in their program I believe there will also be support for nuclear, even among Democrats, because it will be clear that bio fuels will not cut it as the primary mitigation for declining oil production and we will need a big buildup in electricity to take over transportation.

Of course I do not share your pathetic predictions for the growth in nuclear. I think nuclear will supply 60% or more of our total energy supply in 50 years.

You feel she is intentionally misrepresenting the situation? I disagree. I think she is repeating what her finacial supporters have told her. She is spinning when she talks about cuts from projections. Mainly the plan is a promise of money for unions, utilities, agribusiness and the auto industry.

I notice Entergy just spun off some reactors. I expect they are trying to isolate the damage.

Chris

You feel she is intentionally misrepresenting the situation?

No, her plan is not an analysis of the situation. It is a political program.

If her plan said, "since oil production is or soon will be declining, we should build more electricity generation to replace oil as an transportation energy source" she would not be able to get a majority of Democrats and independents to support it. The Republicans would tag her as defeatist, pessimistic and uninformed. They would point to the MSM saying “no authoritative source supports that crazy idea. The oil companies all say there is plenty of oil. She is a captive of environmental or ‘Peak Oil’ crazies”. They would ask, "whose vision of the future would you rather have? Our view that there is unlimited growth and well being for all or her vision of pain and decline?" Many voters would pick the more optimistic vision. Republicans used to call that kind of position "root canal".

Take the Republican vision of taxes, "we can cut your taxes and this will result in more revenue". This has been disproved time and again but it is practically carved in stone in the Republican platform. It is appealing. It does not matter if it is true.

A candidate has to look at the political situation and decide, “what is the best program that I can propose for which I can put together a majority of support and which will help the problem that it is supposed to address”? If the situation includes a critical fact, like peak oil, but that fact is not accepted by society and embracing it would make your program unable to get a majority, then you cannot acknowledge it.

That’s how our system works. It is not cynical. It’s just that people misunderstand what a politician's job is. Sometimes a politician like Al Gore can champion an issue far ahead of its acceptance by society. But those people rarely become society’s top political leaders. And global warming is not anywhere near as controversial as peak oil. People do not really have to do anything about it and if it has an effect on us it will be so far down the road that many people can ignore it. It is not a very dangerous issue to champion compared to peak oil. If peak oil happens, it will happen very soon and will have a devastating effect on everyone’s lives in the near term. It would be a very dangerous issue to embrace. It’s just not the job of a politician who has a good chance of winning to take on such an issue.

Of course, I am sure peak oil is happening and that if there is enough fossil fuel and we choose to burn it, it will have dire effects on our climate and the physical world.

> An increase in fuel efficiency standards to 55 miles per
> gallon by 2030, and $20 billion of "Green Vehicle Bonds"
> to help U.S. automakers retool their plants to meet the
> standards;

Perhaps I'm just pessimistic, but how is it that in a post peak-oil society are we going to keep fuel efficiency standards below 55 miles per gallon by 2030.

I would think it is going to be pretty self-correcting.

From what I'm able to tell we'll be below 60 mbpd by 2030. We're currently at 86 or so. So that's a 30% decline in availability. Even of we are able to get 10% of that back from biological sources, we're down 20% from current stocks by 2030.

It would seem to me that $100 / barrel at 86 mbpd with the current world population and energy consumption will lead to considerably more per barrel when we loose 20% of our supply, and pick up another 20% of human population.

Assuming Chinese and Indian economies continue to grow, and the American and European economies don't collapse, I see a world of $200 / barrel oil for westernized(ing) economies.

I suspect that anything higher than $200 will be unsustainable, and economies will shut down reducing demand, and dropping the price. My gut (no numbers .. would love to see an analysis by someone more educated than me) is that we eventually hit equilibrium at $150 to $200 per barrel, and see declining standards of living / increases in technology past that point.

Americans will either stop driving, or they will purchase technology to let them continue their lifestyle. Or, more likely, poor Americans will stop driving, and wealthy Americans will purchase technology.

I think the political issue isn't whether or not we are going to have an increase in fuel economy standards over 55mpg by 2030. It's whether or not politicians want to ease the transition.

Mike

Actually, I can conceive of a world where people don't have more efficient cars. They just drive a lot less. I suppose if I define "fleet efficiency" as miles driven in 2007 / gallons of gas used, we'll make it one way or the other.

If we don't reduce the denominator, we'll take down the numerator.

Mike

Perhaps I'm just pessimistic, but how is it that in a post peak-oil society are we going to keep fuel efficiency standards below 55 miles per gallon by 2030.

I would think it is going to be pretty self-correcting.

The point is that it's better to do something intentionally than to be forced to do it by circumstances. Planning to be efficient and suddenly having to do with less are two very different ways of using a lower quantity of something.

While I think it is a typical politicians plan, and not a direct product of her mind, but rather of campaign staff, I was generally impressed. Of course there is a sop to the anti-nuclear left, I think that is a requirement for pursuing the nomination. I was impressed that at least her proposed CAFE standard was appropriately aggressive, setting a standard for a quarter of a century at current best practice seems pretty reasonable to me. I also like the aggressive commitment to demonstrating Carbon Capture & Storage. CCS is an unlovable, but important technology that has to be pursued to have any chance of avoiding the worst effects of climate change.

Of course the commenter who wanted shorter term goals has an important point. It can be too easy to put great sounding plans on paper, that don't require any sacrifices until far enough in the future to be uncontroversial. He is correct that long term goals could be modified by future political leadership. Nevertheless at this point it looks like she is going to be the only serious nominee with a plan we would like.

The comments about politicians not wanting to deliver bad news about PO are good ones. We select optimists over pessimists. And the sound bite "they've been saying that since the 70's" can be a pretty effective putdown.(It was used on me today).

Government has a few tools at its disposal: taxation, regulation, permits, and subsidy. Government is not the enemy all the time. There are times when government can improve market outcomes. It is true that government often screws things up because they have lousy crystal balls. But government can be a part of the solution. Those who understand the uses and limitations of government power are the ones we want to elect.

I wasn't overly impressed ..my back of envelope calculation can't make that lot work.. but it was about as good as I have seen..but again I haven't seen a lot so it might not be saying much.

what have the other guys come up with?

Boris
London