Sen. Michael Bennet's not so secret adviser on the environment

hey everyone

Ray is talking about this diary I wrote:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

and in that diary I criticize both Mark Udall and Michael Bennet for signing onto a letter that asks for natural gas subsidies in the climate bill.

"Any Senate energy and climate bill should provide statutory guidance to harness this important resource and stimulate and support even more activity in this sector of our nation's diverse energy portfolio," states the letter from Sens. Michael Bennett (D-Colo.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Mark Udall (D-Colo.), Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Mary Landrieu (D-La.), David Vitter (R-La.), Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and Mark Begich (D-Alaska).

Aligning yourself with Brownback and Murkowski only strengthens one's conservadem resume.
It is not clean energy and it has been doing damage to the people of Colorado, unless you thinking flameable tap water is healhty - courtesy of natural gas drilling.

Now, Ray or others may come here and post that I am 'in the bag' for Romanoff, but I have said before, this primary gives we the voters the opportunity to put pressure on Bennet for wrong direction moves like this one.
If Romanoff is smart he will seize on this opening.
I am glad Bennet's wife has a good track record on environmental issues, its seems that did not ask his wife about this letter before he signed it.

"NOBODY is as pathetic as that Barron X."
by: Barron X @ Sun Mar 14, 2010 at 20:12:43 PM MDT

PRAER.org

---

by: wade norris @ Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 17:56:41 PM CST

while you are here

you might as well sign this petition.

To:  President of the United States and the United Nations

We the undersigned ask President Obama to sign an Executive Order recognizing people displaced by Climate Change as Environmental Refugees and grant these Environmental Refugees asylum in the United States as permitted by Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America.

We also ask United Nations Secretary General to call a special session of the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees to change the legal status of people displaced by Climate Change from 'Migrants' to 'Refugees' so that these displaced Refugees may seek asylum in other countries around the world.

Sincerely,
the Undersigned

go to this website to sign
http://praer.org/

"NOBODY is as pathetic as that Barron X."
by: Barron X @ Sun Mar 14, 2010 at 20:12:43 PM MDT

PRAER.org

---

by: wade norris @ Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 18:11:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Natural gas is clean energy

Sen. Bennet supports safe measures of extraction.

Your whole point is specious. You knew it when you wrote it.

You lost on dissembling about health care. You are losing on dissembling about clean energy.

.

How about a 5 trillion tax cut for the upper 1% that's borrowed from China  and then invested in China? The Republican platform has legs.

---

by: Ray Springfield @ Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 01:00:34 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Wrong

Natural gas is NOT clean.

Sure, it's cleanER than coal, but this doesn't make it CLEAN.

Sum Ergo Cogito.

---

by: ardy39 @ Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 09:46:07 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Everything's dirty

Look at the carbon emissions that occur manufacturing a wind turbine.

Amazon tax? Bad Idea!

---

by: DavidThi808 @ Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 10:15:39 AM CST

[ Parent ]

C'mon... one time emissions compared to years of producing clean energy???

I'm sure you're sufficiently intelligent, rational, and sophisticated to see how silly that argument makes you seem. If this is the best argument that can be put forth against windmills, then wind power must be a good idea!

Practical illustration: Denmark's success with wind power since the OPEC oil embargo. Wind-generated electricity isn't a theory; it's a demonstrable fact as seen in Denmark--alongside a social commitment to use bikes (brrrr in winter) or walk. (Yes, they have winds of the North Sea; whereas we have North Dakota.) Check out this edition of NOW on PBS re: Denmark's transition to wind power: http://video.pbs.org/video/131... or this article from TIME: http://www.time.com/time/magaz...

Then there is Shai Agassi's Better Place proposed networks of interchangeable electric car battery stations, to be in place by 2011 in Israel (and I believe Hawaii has also adopted the plan). Info here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02...

Not going to happen? Well, maybe you're not going to make it happen, but that doesn't mean the status quo is locked in place indefinitely.

(OTOH, there's the dirty energy expended in transporting the manufactured turbines to wind farms, digging foundations, stringing wires... No, on second thought, let's do nothing.)

---

by: JO @ Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 10:41:09 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You can also bring up France as an example

Done a great job of producing electricity using a clean source. Except in their case it's nuclear.

I think there are a lot of approaches we should try. My point was just that for the next 20 years the main sources we have are coal, natural gas, oil, & nuclear.

Amazon tax? Bad Idea!

---

by: DavidThi808 @ Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 17:59:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Except they aren't doing so great.

They have a major investigation going on right now (there was a BBC report on this on Wednesday) because several dozen of their nuclear plants have been deemed unsafe and in violation of health and safety codes.

--From a "real dick."
by: JO

---

by: Middle of the Road @ Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 18:02:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Two separate issues

Issue #1: Adopting new habits in order to reduce the need for energy from whatever source. Sharply reducing the number and distance of personal trips away from the house strikes me as the most readily available source of conservation, one in which Boulder excels, btw.

Issue #2: Concentrated effort to implement renewable sources of energy, notably wind. Denmark after about 30 years is up to around 19%--not 100%--but they have also sharply reduced energy usage notably for individual transport.

Until and unless a way of found to store radioactive waste from nuclear plants safely, we will be trading one set of problems for another, potentially lethal, problem.

Whatever the source, I don't think it's inconceivable tht we will find ourselves living lifestyles not unlike the Amish today--and everyone else before the year 1859--with the exception of the Internet and related technology.

May I sell you one of my newly patented Herman Hermit's Pedal-Powered Computer-Power-Paks? It's also a good way to lose weight while browsing.

---

by: JO @ Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 18:38:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

First off apologies

I was in a bad mood this afternoon and was much harsher in my replies than was called for - sorry.

As to lifestyle, the history of the human race has been to have more comfortable life with more "stuff." I don't see people deciding to make do with less. We'll find ways to reduce the materials and energy required to manufacture and operate what we use in life, but we'll also continue to increase what we need.

The biggest increase will come from the people in countries like China & India which are rushing to gain all the goods of a middle class lifestyle as fast as they can. No way are they going to forgo what we have.

Amazon tax? Bad Idea!

---

by: DavidThi808 @ Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 21:14:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

More vs different

You're right about history heretofore, of course. But then, we've never tried fitting 6-9 billion people on the planet, and we've never had a period of, say, 160 years (petroleum) or so (300 years for coal, adopted when England was deforested) of burning past carbon materials at a rapid rate. The whole point about global warming is that the planet is, or has, reached an unprecedented saturation point that may preclude more of the same.

And I admit to not knowing with any certainty whether in the far distant past--say, before 1985--whether there were times of declining living standards, at least among some peoples, brought on by war, much less by periodic climate changes such as droughts and floods.

No doubt about what you say re India and China. Some doubt that we can maintain our particular lifestyles--not to be confused with living standards--which depend on using rather more energy per capita than anyone else, including W. Europe. I would say that I don't feel as able to influence behavior in India and China as I feel able to influence behavior right here in Colorado.

Now, let's break out the white paint and draw some bike path lanes in Centennial this weekend!

---

by: JO @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 00:11:50 AM CST

[ Parent ]

the China/India argument of

"The USA won't commit to any climate change until China or India does" is an Industry talking point designed to deflect our country's responsibility for the ongoing problem.
The truth is, other countries will come to Copenhagen and if we don't lead, will say,
"well the biggest polluter in the world is not doing anything, why should we?"

and China is leading the way by constructing the largest solar array in the world. that is not to dismiss each coal plant they are building once a week, but as this graph shows, India and China have a long, long way to go before they catch the United States.

"NOBODY is as pathetic as that Barron X."
by: Barron X @ Sun Mar 14, 2010 at 20:12:43 PM MDT

PRAER.org

---

by: wade norris @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:40:09 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You're kidding, right?

Good thing there aren't any carbon emissions from the construction of a drilling rig.

Of course, anything we do has some impact. So, yes we need to favor steps that reduce our impact. Favoring natural gas over coal is one of those steps.

But to make claims that natural gas is CLEAN is more than misleading. That's what I was pointing out.

Sum Ergo Cogito.

---

by: ardy39 @ Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 11:10:40 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I'll agree with you on this

Amazon tax? Bad Idea!

---

by: DavidThi808 @ Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 18:00:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Oh man

You know that I have to agree with nearly everyone that posts here at least some of the time. Even you, David. Much more than most of the time. Thanks. I'm sure we'll agree and disagree in the future.

Unfortunately, we don't always take the time to carefully explain the nuances of our intentions when we try to write a quick post. I'm glad I had the opportunity to clarify my meaning so that you could see I was taking issue with a specific claim, not an overall strategy.

As for France doing "a great job," you might want to rethink your praise.

1) Their nuclear program is "government run."

2) They have had to cut electricity production during droughts because of water issues. Here's one story about it.

According to those rules and nuclear safety standards, the reactors much be shut down ... if the volume of the [river] water flow falls below certain limits.

... in the summer of 2003, when France suffered a record-setting heatwave, several nuclear plants reached the point of having to shut down.

Or this:

Due to the current serious drought (think: "transient global warming conditions"), maintenance issues, and a worker strike, 80% nuclear-reliant France is now importing electricity from England to meet power demand.

Or even the US southeast in 2008:

Utility officials say such [nuclear plant] shutdowns wouldn't result in blackouts. But they could lead to shockingly higher electric bills for millions of Southerners.

Nuclear just might not be our best option, or even among our better options, for any significant part of the future. (Still, I agree we must keep considering it as one among many options and work out where and when it does make sense. We don't have the luxury of reducing our set of options prematurely.)

Sum Ergo Cogito.

---

by: ardy39 @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:35:34 AM CST

[ Parent ]

as you can see Ray

this debate is much bigger than Michael Bennet - he needs to know that pushing natural gas is not going to get a pass here - that goes for Udall as well.
If you want to prove that Natural gas is clean, why don't you prove it by drinking some water from the tap in the house with flammable water?

We have many solutions, and our politicians - even ones in the primaries, need to listen to what the people want.
Solar, Wind, smart grids, electric cars -
a livable planet.

"NOBODY is as pathetic as that Barron X."
by: Barron X @ Sun Mar 14, 2010 at 20:12:43 PM MDT

PRAER.org

---

by: wade norris @ Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 11:32:13 AM CST

[ Parent ]

and the pony, don't forget the pony

Wade - why do you never list sources that can address the level of requirements we face - today.

Amazon tax? Bad Idea!

---

by: DavidThi808 @ Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 18:01:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Question is not "today" but rather "level of requirements."

Reducing the latter is much easier, cheaper, and demonstrably practicable than substituting to-be-built means of generating electricity. Do your employees telecommute?

---

by: JO @ Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 18:40:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

We telecommute occasionally

When it's a bad snowstorm or someone is sick. The issue with start-ups is that you have lots of very short face to face discussions. And for most of us, it's collaborative work so 2 or 3 people are working together on one computer at times or talking an issue through.

We could do it at a distance - but it would be less efficient. Add to that that most of our employees do not have a home office.

PS Interesting note - Boulder has put the kibosh on expanding homes. So not allowing home offices means less telecommuting.

Amazon tax? Bad Idea!

---

by: DavidThi808 @ Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 21:18:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Far be it from me to tell you how to run your business, but:

1. Don't have a home office? Does that mean they don't turn on their computers and go online at home? Does that mean they do not, cannot put a laptop on the table where they eat dinner?

1a. Same with expanding homes. Boulder is talking about limiting the infestation of McMansions, homes in the 4k-5k sq ft range, not the 2k range, which is sufficient to have a dining room table. That argument is wholly specious, as you know, and making it simply undermines your case, i.e., if that's the best you can come up with, then you don't have a case.

2. You are accustomed to take "face to face" literally; if you were intent on it, you could utilize informal video conferencing, chat, and other standard, down-market consumer services (including real-time viewing the same screen on several computers). Blv your alma mater might even have software to help you; if not, here's a link to six free packages: http://www.online-tech-tips.co...

Change means change; there are some downsides, some upsides. If saving fuel were among your priorities, I dare say you could do rather more than you're doing now with relatively little downside, e.g. telecommuting 3 days one week, 2 the next, or switching to 4-day workweeks, and that you could arrange to start from next Tuesday.

---

by: JO @ Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 22:42:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

If saving fuel was our top priority

yes we could have more working at home and take reduced productivity in trade. Unfortunately we compete directly with Microsoft & SAP and they won't cut us a break if we do that.

The work we do requires focus which is why everyone has their own office at work. The dining room table won't cut it if there are others at home. You also need a full workspace - large desk, whiteboard, etc.

And there's buying everyone a second computer with two very large monitors - that adds up. I generally do this regardless but right now with money very tight the purchase of second computers is on hold.

The biggie though is the face to face. We do video conferencing for our sales and it works very well there. But software development is such a collaborative effort, it's almost like asking the Broncos why don't they each train at home to save gas.

The industry is getting there, and there are times we can, and do, telecommute. But we can't switch over today.

ps - The Boulder rules are based on lot size so smaller houses on small lots end up very restricted.

Amazon tax? Bad Idea!

---

by: DavidThi808 @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 08:38:11 AM CST

[ Parent ]

4-day work week?

Not every solution fits every case. I seem to recall a phrase "early adopters." Maybe that's not you--"Doin' it the way we've always done it is the only way to do it." That's so if you choose to make it so.

Sorry to see you quoting Microsoft here, though; I'd think Google would be rather more forward looking--cloud computing and all that.

BTW, second screens of the 22-23" variety can be had for around $200 or less. Lessee: programmer in a 35 mpg vehicle drives 35 miles round trip each day (can't live in Boulder since law coming into effect two months from now limits Pops 'n' Scrapes on a 7,000 sq ft lot to 3,500 sq ft; http://www.dailycamera.com/new... that's a hardship!), burns about a gallon of gasoline a day @ $2.559, present price. In 100 telecommuting days he/she saves $255.90 (driving a Tesla will be even cheaper). Gotta wonder how "each programmer has his own office" fits with "need for face-to-face collaboration." Any chance of saving on rent, now or in the future, by sharing offices by telecommuters? Do your employees not use laptops, or own their own computers? "Software firm employs programmers who don't own computers." C'mon, man, you can do better than that to justify clinging to status quo!

But this conversation is silly and there's no point in continuing. You're telling us, over and over, "I ain't gonna change and I'll come up with an endless chain of half-assed reasons to justify clinging to the olden ways. Moreover, I hate those Sierra Club types that have overrun PRB." Free country and all that; not everyone chooses to be part of the solution instead of part of the problem.

Meantime, obstacles are placed there for one of two reasons (you get to choose which one you act on): to be overcome, or to thwart change.

---

by: JO @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 10:57:44 AM CST

[ Parent ]

In defense

of David here. I agree that there is something crucial about regular face-to-face interactions. We are social animals, afterall.

I just about go crazy after working from my home office for a full week. Many problems just get bigger without being able to casually run it by a respected colleague "by the water cooler."

Also, it gets tiring being so careful with text communications that don't convey emotion.  

Sum Ergo Cogito.

---

by: ardy39 @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:39:17 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Point taken, but...

Is your telecommuting accompanied by other changes, such as equipping everyone with videocams and insisting that everyone be available in that way?

Five days a week is quite a lot different than my suggestion of 2 or 3 times a week.

Granted there are downsides to the telecommute routine. There are also upsides. In thinking about this, does the time and money saved by not commuting factor into your evaluation?

I return again (and again and again and again) to the four-day workweek, which from personal experience I believe to be highly desirable and something that can be implemented at no cost in a very short time-frame, if nothing else as an experiment scheduled for next week, water-cooler time included.

My point, over and over again, is not that everyone must adopt one idea or another, but that everyone must do something--or things--differently that adds up to a 20% energy saving in one year for every single employed person--a measure that seems to be more and more achievable, sorry to say.

---

by: JO @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:52:12 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Point by point

1) A 4 day work-week won't work because right now we're working 45 - 55 hours/week. Can't cram that into 4 days - after about 10 hours the brain starts making a lot more mistakes.

2) Yep, it's $650.00 - $800.00/person for a fast machine & dual monitors. Now multiply that by the number of employees - when the economy is in the toilet and we've had to cut back like crazy. (People own computers, but not ones with the horsepower needed for what we do.)

3) If we could reduce our office use - makes no financial difference as we're in a long-term lease. And numerous studies have shown that individual offices double productivity for most office jobs. Google, Apple, etc all do individual offices. Even IBM tries to do it.

I'm open to trying things that are new. But I'm not willing to go against what has been proven to work best unless there is a strong argument for a better way.

Keep in mind high tech companies constantly try to make themselves more productive - because all of their competitors do also. If changing something provides an advantage, we'll all jump on it. By the same measure, if something harms productivity, we won't go that way because it's such a competitive environment.

Telecommuting works well when used appropriately. But it isn't a blanket answer. And for a start-up, using agile approaches, there's strong advantages to working at the office.

But the bigger issue is most of the people working at my company don't have a home office. And so the work environment at home is poor.

In a perfect world the economy would be going well, money would be pouring in, every employee would have a good work environment at home, and we would have many people telecommuting several days a week.

But with what we face today, we have two that telecommute most every day, and the rest telecommute occasionally, mostly when the weather sucks.

Amazon tax? Bad Idea!

---

by: DavidThi808 @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 17:14:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Ok, I'll bite

Aside from fairy dust, what do you think we should generate energy from to meet the needs that exist today. Wind, solar, tidal, etc can't come close. If you don't want to keep funding the terrorists (ie oil), that leaves a combination of nuclear, natural gas, and coal.

And clean coal is still a pipe dream, so if you don't want to put the earth in the oven and set it at high - that leaves natural gas & nuclear.

Amazon tax? Bad Idea!

---

by: DavidThi808 @ Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 19:04:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Bogus scenario (bite me!)

Nukes also can't meet our energy needs that exist TODAY. It will take decades to do that. And then the fuel still costs money (and increasing amounts) AND there is that little waste problem. And health of miners. And ...

Meanwhile, we could use that 20 years productively to develop solar and wind into resources that will provide all our electricity and much of our other energy needs.

Of course, if we don't address the demand side of the equation, then we have even bigger issues For example, natural gas reserves are forecast to last 100 years at our current rate of use. If we increase our use of this resource, it will last much less time. Meanwhile we will rape the hell out of the earth just to make our children make the decisions we should have made 30 years ago.

There is so much energy coming in from the sun. We need something like the area of New Jersey to provide all the electrical needs of the WORLD. We paved more than this area under interstate highways in 30 years.

We can do it. Sure, we can whine that it will be hard. But that attitude is so last administration. It's time. Buck up.  

Sum Ergo Cogito.

---

by: ardy39 @ Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 19:29:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

and how about a letter

written by Bennet asking GM to mass produce the Tesla roadster to bring the cost down?

"NOBODY is as pathetic as that Barron X."
by: Barron X @ Sun Mar 14, 2010 at 20:12:43 PM MDT

PRAER.org

---

by: wade norris @ Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 20:14:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Just because you dislike the choices

Doesn't mean they are not the options we have. We could bring a lot of nuclear online in about 6 years. Ask the Navy - they build nuclear boats in less time than that.

I agree solar is the long-term future. But it's going to take time. It's not cost competitive yet and storage systems (for things like, you know, night time) that exist suck.

Amazon tax? Bad Idea!

---

by: DavidThi808 @ Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 09:05:33 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Ever hear of fuel cells?

Home fuel cells are being tested in Europe. Solar PV is used to drive H production during the day. Seems to work better than batteries, likely to last longer too. Takes up a lot less area. Costs for fuel for the next 100 years are known.
(Sorry, the link I had is now broken, if I find the source again, I'll post the link.)

Sum Ergo Cogito.

---

by: ardy39 @ Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 09:44:56 AM CST

[ Parent ]

In the Navy?

I have several disjointed points:

-There are lots of things that happen in the name of defense that don't happen in the civilian world.

-My understanding is that we still have lots of natural gas and coal that can get us through the night time. Now that this problem is solved, let's move on to the next.

-Solar and wind are both highly competitive if we stop allowing the fossil fuel industry to externalize their costs. (I agree with need to tax gas appropriately.)

-Nukes suck water. Thus they are totally inappropriate for the western US. How do you think you'll get one built in the eastern US?

(Aside: As you know, there is no way we'll ever be able to build a computer that is both useful and small enough to fit in a shirt pocket. I mean, how will we ever get these vacuum tubes small enough. Let's just admit defeat now and save the hassle.)

Sum Ergo Cogito.

---

by: ardy39 @ Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 11:24:15 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The Navy's record is really good

They've been incredibly safe with nuclear.

I'm not wild on coal to handle nighttime because it's cooking our planet.

Solar and wind are coming on good. I just don't see them getting much over 20% in the next 10 years.

You're right that nukes need to be on the coast.

I think the time from vacuum tubes to a pocket PC was well over 20 years. We'll make progress with energy too - but we're not going to change everything in 1 year.

Amazon tax? Bad Idea!

---

by: DavidThi808 @ Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 18:04:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

"meet the needs that exist today...."

Key point! The best, and possibly only, way to achieve short-term large-scale reduction in use of carbon energy is to adopt immediate measures to reduce demand dramatically. By short-term, I mean next six months. Such measures need not be terribly expensive or even inconvenient. For example:

1. Adopt four-day, 9-1/2-hour-day work schedule, a 20% savings on fuel spent commuting by many (not all) workers.

2. Encourage multi-enterprise neighborhood cyber work centers, and/or telecommuting from home four or five days per fortnight. Not a one-for-one savings, but a net savings in transportation, especially in cases where several workers could share the cost of heating one house in the neighborhood.

3. Major, major commitment to increase video conferencing, even as a matter of supervising telecommuters, as well as business meetings. (I work for a green company and we use video-conferencing to hear sales pitches...)

4. Make ride-sharing seriously attractive, and perhaps even "mandatory" by such measures as reducing parking spaces.

5. Add $1. per gallon to gasoline taxes, proceeds to go entirely to making mass transit FREE in Front Range communities.

6. Mandatory universal retail store closing one day per week, plus Public Interest Announcement megathrust on shopping via Internet. Sorry, retailers; this is a potentially costly proposal to you, but could eliminate a fair number of trips to the store.

7. Mandatory house inspections for insulation and low-interest loans to bring all houses up to a high standard of insulation, starting this winter.

8. Re-examine building and zoning codes with a view towards (a) smaller houses; (b) more small retail within walking distance, e.g. food stores; (c) multi-use structures in residential neighborhoods that could encourage walking to a whole range of services, e.g. medical. (Admittedly, a longer-term project.)

9. Diversion of highway funding to create bike paths and, short term, painting wide bike lanes capable of sharing with suped-up golf carts, even at the expense of closing car lanes on some roads/streets. Again, not a 1-for-1 savings, electric carts for gasoline cars, but some savings on petroleum if not natural gas.

I question whether we should be seeking ONE BIG ANSWER, such as solar or wind. A more productive approach is to identify many smaller measures, emphasizing the reduction of demand in the short term.

---

by: JO @ Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 23:10:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Along with asking for the above to happen

You should ask for a pony too. Because a pony you might get.

There is 0% chance of any of the above occurring. I doubt you could get a majority to support the above left wing fantasy even up here in the People's Republic of Boulder. (Some of the above are good ideas - but they're not going to happen.)

Amazon tax? Bad Idea!

---

by: DavidThi808 @ Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 09:02:27 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm sure this is why you are successful in business.

Constantly pointing bogus reasons for why something can't be done.

Did you intend to name your company Whineward?

Sum Ergo Cogito.

---

by: ardy39 @ Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 09:41:32 AM CST

[ Parent ]

One thing I have learned in business

Is to figure out what the most effective solution is and to not let my personal preferences or biases lead me in another direction.

Take taxing gasoline. I think they should push the price up to at least $4.50/gallon - and make it clear that the price will never drop below that again ever.

Very sensible proposal. And there is no way on earth Congress would ever pass it.

Amazon tax? Bad Idea!

---

by: DavidThi808 @ Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 10:14:44 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Sure about that?

1. No one in Boulder has agreed to telecommuting for at least some days?

2. Seems to me Boulder has done a damned good job at designing and implementing an alternative set of routes for bicycles and/or multi-use paths/bike lanes. This is in sharp contrast to other places I've visited, where bike lanes are not to be seen, even though they could easily be painted. Not going to happen?

3. No one is going to start a ball rolling by asking salesmen to make their pitches via videoconferencing? If they want to make the sale, it's a cheap investment of about $30 for the minimal webcam. Could prove contagious.

Alongside the facts of an impending catastrophe, arguably an even bigger problem facing our society is the attitude of "can't do it," and "it ain't gonna happen," which then leads to "don't bother trying."

Forgive me if I question your ability to foresee what is and isn't going to happen, whereas your defense of Do Nothing is entirely clear and not subject to question.

---

by: JO @ Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 10:17:28 AM CST

[ Parent ]

What I disagreed with

Was your proposal that:

By short-term, I mean next six months.

Amazon tax? Bad Idea!

---

by: DavidThi808 @ Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 18:12:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

David,

i think it is interesting that TESLA motors is opening a showroom for buying their cars, in Boulder.
Seems like the smart folks in the
"people's republic of Boulder"
are on to something.

And what's up with the Defeatist attitude?
Did you know that GM/Saturn mass produced Electric Cars in the 1990's that worked efficiently, went 75 miles per hour and could meet the demands of most commuters on a single charge?
The only thing holding us back from clean energy is corporate greed and the lack of political will to take on that power structure.

"NOBODY is as pathetic as that Barron X."
by: Barron X @ Sun Mar 14, 2010 at 20:12:43 PM MDT

PRAER.org

---

by: wade norris @ Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 11:37:04 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I went and looked at the Tesla

It's incredibly expensive and impractical. So great for Boulder but not much use elsewhere.

GM created some decent electric cars, but they're working like crazy to produce them now and hitting a bunch of problems. Same for the other car companies.

The car companies would love to have economically priced cars tomorrow - because of corporate greed - they'd sell a ton of them. They still face problems.

Amazon tax? Bad Idea!

---

by: DavidThi808 @ Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 18:06:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

For someone who comes up with batshit crazy schemes all the time

you sure like to piss on other people's ideas.

"You need to move past Fourier transforms and start thinking quantum mechanics!" --The Transformers

---

by: sxp151 @ Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 12:17:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yep

We should evaluate all ideas with a critical eye.

Amazon tax? Bad Idea!

---

by: DavidThi808 @ Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 18:12:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Oh dear, you're on the right path again!

Focusing on ONE BIG ANSWER is exactly what those who want no change do. You are right.

Focusing on many approaches and technologies that all contribute to the answer is what people who really want to solve this problem do.

For those of you who are interested, here's a paper from 2004 that sets out a path looking at how to incorporate bits of all the potential solutions (including nuclear).

Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies.
The paper was published in Science and is written by two well respected scientists who have been working on actual solution trajectories. They evaluate 15 options and show how picking combinations of 7 allows for bite-size progress that becomes meaningful in just a decade.

Of course, it's easier to just insist that "it can't be done." It works for Rush Limbaugh, so maybe it will work for you. (Not you, JO, but others who fight against strawman "solutions.")

Sum Ergo Cogito.

---

by: ardy39 @ Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 09:56:08 AM CST

[ Parent ]

There is a lot of Natural Gas and a lot of Coal

in the U.S.  

The oil and gas industry and the mining industry are both powerful forces on Capitol Hill, and on capitol hills around the states, spreading their largess with elected officials from county commissioner to President.

The issue is, has always been: at what cost and to whom?

Natural Gas extraction is making a mess of many places, as companies argue and lobby and pump campaign coffers with the note; that regulations are bad, that you can't prove we did it, and that we can also be your worse enemy if you are not our friend.

But to ignore the significant environmental cost of NatGas because it burns cleaner--whether you are a software CEO or a U.S. Sen is wrong.  Yet another symptom of our disease.

"Yes Twitty, I'm an idiot." Ben Stein's $$

---

by: ClubTwitty @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 07:36:10 AM CST

[ Parent ]

but what has he done

Ray -- I don't doubt Mrs. Bennet's enviro cred.  You state that he has done a lot, but then list her accomplishments.  Could you please site what Sen. Bennet has done on this topic?

Or are you suggesting that his wife would be the better Senator on this issue?

---

by: Nomadic Politico @ Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 12:10:34 PM CST

correction

please cite -- I hate when I have a typo

---

by: Nomadic Politico @ Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 12:11:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

ummm....I don't think you followed closely enough...

...her last name is Daggett, not Bennet.

Don't you hate typos?!

---

by: Jambalaya @ Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 18:14:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

yeah i realized that after I wrote it

I just didn't feel like writing a second correction to my post...and I was curious if someone would say something about that while ignoring the actual point :)

Regardless, the argument is the same -- Ray fails to say what (if anything) Sen. Bennet has actually done on this issue.

---

by: Nomadic Politico @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 19:53:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What hath Bennet done?

Co-sponsor on:
S.1379 - Energy Efficiency in Housing Act of 2009

To encourage energy efficiency and conservation and development of renewable energy sources for housing, commercial structures, and other buildings, and to create sustainable communities.

S.1250 - Algae-based Renewable Fuel Promotion Act of 2009

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand the definition of cellulosic biofuel to include algae-based biofuel for purposes of the cellulosic biofuel producer credit and the special allowance for cellulosic biofuel plant property

S.1619 - Livable Communities Act of 2009

To establish the Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities, to establish the Interagency Council on Sustainable Communities, to establish a comprehensive planning grant program, to establish a sustainability challenge grant program, and for other purposes.

S.575 - Clean, Low-Emission, Affordable, New Transportation Efficiency Act

To amend title 49, United States Code, to develop plans and targets for States and metropolitan planning organizations to develop plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector, and for other purposes.

How's that for a brief primer?

Sum Ergo Cogito.

---

by: ardy39 @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 13:26:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well, sure it <i>looks</i> like a lot when you put it that way

But has he built a solar house?
Has he converted his car to run on peanut oil?

ALl of these things are going to take years,  what has he done that fixes everything right now.

---

by: MADCO @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:33:52 AM CST

[ Parent ]