U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser (D) Joe Neguse (D) Michael Bennet
50% 50% 50%
Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Jena Griswold

(D) Brian Mason

60%↑

30%↑

20%↓

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) George Stern

(R) Sheri Davis

50%↑

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%↑

30%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Manny Rutinel

(D) Yadira Caraveo

45%↓

40%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
June 07, 2010 08:00 PM UTC

Carpe Diem, OR Party vs Candidates

  • 23 Comments
  • by: JO

Thanks to Chuck Schumer, honcho of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, we now have the stark contrast between the perceived interests of incumbents and the interests of the nation at large.

SchumerVision: On climate and energy, “start small, instead of bringing a comprehensive bill to the floor.” http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo…

Alternative: Seize upon the Gulf ecodisaster as a unique opportunity–possibly (and hopefully) not to come again–for Barack Obama and Democrats in general to launch an ambitious national program to cure our addiction to petroleum. A member of the Casper (WY) Petroleum Club was recently quoted as wondering out loud whether the Gulf disaster would be to petroleum power what Three Mile Island was to nuclear. It could be if Obama elects to make it so.

Since the OPEC embargo of the ’70s, the United States has engaged in ongoing denial: denial that burning oil is pushing the globe to profound climate change with unknown consequences, denial that petroleum supplies will eventually run out (“peak oil”) thereby ushering in unknown economic consequences, denial that the United States is increasingly dependent on imports to meet our thirst for oil, with unknown diplomatic consequences (although Saudi/Emirate financing of Al Qaeda is one that is known). During the same period, Denmark, to name one, has built enough windmills to supply about one-fourth of their energy needs, and in the process generated a new industry at home.

After the attack on Pearl Harbor, the American people, with the leadership of FDR, were able to mobilize virtually overnight (and in the process give birth to what later became a military-industrial complex). But in response to the slightly more subtle challenge of petro-addiction, we have managed to do … nothing.

Obama has, unfortunately, begun to take on the air of a president buffeted by events not of his making. Pictures of Obama walking fouled beaches in Louisiana, far from portraying a “take charge” kinda guy, suggest a president who is essentially helpless. Oh, if only he’d let loose with a string of expletives to prove how really, really, angry he is! (And thereby achieve nothing…but….)  

OR, as a dynamic leader in the mold of FDR, he could issue a call to action NOW, and make it happen!

–An emergency construction project to throw up windmills as fast as we can put them together in a rapidly expanded set of factories. {Think naval shipbuilding in 1942.) The American Steppes are a source of clean, renewable energy waiting to be tapped. Where are the windmills?

–Divert funds used to further embed the automobile culture (i.e. road construction) to building networks of commuter rail systems. In Colorado, that means turning Slo-to-No-Traks to FasTracks now. Maybe it means putting heavy rail tracks in the left lanes of I-25 from Fort Collins to Colorado Springs. Etc.

–Help fund these projects by imposing A $1 or even $2 per gallon tax on gasoline, plus annual fees for vehicle registration based on fuel efficiency. Wanna drive your Hummer to work? No problem, as long as you pay $12,000 per year for your registration.

–Achieve an immediate 20% savings in gasoline consumption, at least for some workers, by instituting a four-day workweek (4 x 9.5 hours) for all federal employees and employees of all states that accept federal funding for anything. Build incentives for private companies to do the same, and enable telecommuting on a wide scale (at least 2 days a week). While we’re at it, encourage video conferencing in lieu of face-to-face meetings that require travel by car or plane. Start by implementing video conferencing for cabinet meetings.

–Call on Americans to make sacrifices–financial, personal convenience–to change their habits. [See: Greatest Generation, 1942-45.] Solicit new ideas that individual families can adopt for major gains in the short term.

–And lastly, ban all future off shore drilling–a strong symbol of how seriously Obama, Democrats–and the American people–take this commitment to end the addiction to oil.

OR, Obama could adopt Schumer’s attitude–take it slooooow, so slow that no one will even notice! A vote for the incumbent Democrats is a vote for …. no change, no hope of change, status quo forever.

 

Tweet
Share

Comments

23 thoughts on “Carpe Diem, OR Party vs Candidates”

  1. $1 or even $2 per gallon tax on gasoline, plus annual fees for vehicle registration based on fuel efficiency. Wanna drive your Hummer to work? No problem, as long as you pay $12,000 per year for your registration.

    Zero chance of this getting enacted.  Zero.  I think this proposal shows how a lot of the leftward criticisms of Obama are in the vein of, “Ohh, but if only he were tough enough to impose my dream liberal utopia on the nation…”  Dreams are nice, but you really can’t fault a president in a separation-of-powers regime for not enacting a dream that Congress simply will not touch.  Actually, you can fault the president for that, but the rest of us don’t have to take you seriously.

    1. http://www.petitiononline.com/…

      (click on to sign it the petition)

      Gulf Oil Spill Electric Car Credit

      With oil prices expected to exceed $100 per barrel and millions of dollars of catastrophic damage occurring to U.S. coasts, wildlife, and coastal economies, all due to the 2010 Gulf Coast Oil Spill, it is time for a new direction for transportation in America.

      In response to the Gulf Coast Oil Spill, this petition asks the U.S. Congress and Senate to introduce legislation and for the President to sign into law a bill that will do the following:

      1) Increase the electric car tax credit for any American made Electric cars to 70% of the purchase price.

      2) Provide a tax credit for consumers equal to the cost of labor to convert their gas engine vehicle to an electric engine vehicle.

      3) To require that all Federal Agencies must use American made Electric cars for 70% of their vehicle fleets beginning January of 2011 and thereafter.

      This will create instant demand for U.S. made electric cars, which will put Americans back to work, boost the American economy, reduce the demand for Oil, and will give the American people a choice to drive an affordable vehicle that is clean and does not pose a threat to our coastal economies or our wildlife.

       

      1. …I’d add another proposal to a comprehensive energy policy: guidelines to build an infrastructure for electric cars. Gasoline cars wouldn’t be feasible without the infrastructure that includes both standardized fuel and a network of ubiquitous refueling stations. As long as electric cars are limited to a range of 100-200 miles before lengthy (hours?) recharging, they’re feasible only for limited uses (driving to work within 20 miles). That could be a serious obstacle to converting from gasoline to electricity.

        A much better solution would be replaceable batteries, on the model of propane tanks: drive in, swap your spent battery for a freshly charged one, for a fee, and off you go 5 minutes later. Meantime, the spent battery begins recharging for the next customer. An example of where government action could help spur electric car makers adopt standards for batteries (size, output, placement of plugs, etc.) comparable to grades of gasoline. Need not be a single standard, but realistically not more than 4 or 5 shapes and capacities. The marketplace might eventually achieve this, but we need to speed up this process to hasten the conversion, as well as making feasible private investment in battery stations.

  2. On the east coast, oil not only heats homes it is also used to generate electricity.  Why?  Because nobody, led by the entreched east coast environmentals/democrats, would allow the construction of a nuclear power plant for the last 30 years.

    This election cycle is interesting because there is not only a Democrat vs Republican dynamic but there is a perhaps equally strong, Incumbent/Insider vs. Outsider dynamic. I see the DC crowd in denial and not waking up until it is over.

    1. Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island.  The near-catastrophe of TMI and the actual catastrophe of Chernobyl scared far more than the environmentalists and Democrats.  Those and the massive subsidies required to build a new plant made nuclear power pretty much unacceptable here.  For all that we are supposedly the most advanced country in the world, we have some very conservative views when it comes to our safety – or our perception of it.

  3. France, for example, has a very large percentage of its electricity generated by nuclear power.  The safety record has been good and you can’t make a lot of hay on the French don’t care about their safety.

    To me, it has gone way beyond any semblance of a safety issue and has become a cult like belief.  

    1. Although, being someone who might have been contaminated had the TMI containment vessel failed (and it should have given the partial meltdown of the core they later determined had occurred), I can see suitable reason for caution.  (Heck no, I don’t glow!)

      You’ll note how I finished my response; I’ll paraphrase it just in case: our (Americans) perception of our safety often overrides our desire for advancement and liberty.

    2. is being touted because it is a source of energy that needs to be replenished, just like coal or gas – meaning there is money in it for traditional energy groups like miners, utilities etc.

      Once you build a Solar Array or a Windfarm, that’s it. You have power forever, period.

      And that cuts out the middlemen who stand to lose their money.

      too bad.

      energy should be cheap and renewable not dirty and expensive.

    3. –Where do the French store their spent, but still radioactive, fuel?

      –Do you think France would allow the U.S. to ship spent fuel there…in case politically threatened majority leaders from Nevada don’t want to store it close to home for the next few hundred years?

      I seem to recall reading recently an essay about human beings’ perceptions of threats–and the importance of denial in those perceptions, the notion that “since it hasn’t happened yet, it won’t happen.” Too bad thinking doesn’t make it so.

      Who’d be so foolish to think that oil could ever sell for $140 a barrel … or that it could ever reach that level a second time … on its way to $200/bbl–and up? Lessee, an extra $80/barrel comes out to around $2.00 per gallon. Nah, never happen. Zero chance. Zero. Meantime, let’s all hop on board the Palinmobile (V8, 450 hp) and “drill, baby, drill.”

      1. Even more surprising is the innovative solution (not purely technology-based, but with creative management, much like the thesis of your diary 😉

        French Nuclear Energy

        From the beginning the French had been recycling their nuclear waste, reclaiming the plutonium and unused uranium and fabricating new fuel elements. This not only gave energy, it reduced the volume and longevity of French radioactive waste. The volume of the ultimate high-level waste was indeed very small: the contribution of a family of four using electricity for 20 years is a glass cylinder the size of a cigarette lighter.

        But eventually, even that became too much.  And they first attempted their own version of Yucca Mountain, with exactly the same public reaction.

        Fighting the objections of technical experts who argued it would increase costs, Bataille introduced the notions of reversibility and stocking. Waste should not be buried permanently but rather stocked in a way that made it accessible at some time in the future. People felt much happier with the idea of a “stocking center” than a “nuclear graveyard”.

        – snip –

        Stocking waste and watching it involves a commitment to the future. It implies that the waste will not be forgotten. It implies that the authorities will continue to be responsible. And, says Bataille, it offers some possibility of future advances. “Today we stock containers of waste because currently scientists don’t know how to reduce or eliminate the toxicity, but maybe in 100 years perhaps scientists will.”

        Essentially, they admit they don’t have a solution today, but draw upon the shared realization that they would rather solve this problem than the much larger problem of dependence on unstable suppliers of foreign oil.

        Obama does need to amp up his PR mojo.

    4. As reported in the TimesOnline on July 3, 2009:

      France is being forced to import electricity from Britain to cope with a summer heatwave that has helped to put a third of its nuclear power stations out of action.

      With temperatures across much of France surging above 30C this week, EDF’s reactors are generating the lowest level of electricity in six years, forcing the state-owned utility to turn to Britain for additional capacity.

      Fourteen of France’s 19 nuclear power stations are located inland and use river water rather than seawater for cooling. When water temperatures rise, EDF is forced to shut down the reactors to prevent their casings from exceeding 50C. [emphases added]

      Nukes are not a silver bullet. Especially in the desert southwest.

      Photovoltaics don’t work when the sun don’t shine.

      Turbines don’t work when the wind don’t blow.

      Nukes don’t work when the rivers don’t flow.

      It may be that the demand for nukes has gone beyond any semblance of real solutions and has become a cult-like belief.

      First, we must do less (that is, use less energy).

      1. Fact is there is a downside to any energy source, some have more negative consequences than others, but there is always a price to pay. PV electrical panels aren’t “forever” as one poster here stated – a panel’s service life is 20 to 30 years max.

        Using less – conservation – is the key. The US has 4% of the world’s population, we use 30% of the world’s energy, and we produce 50% of the world’s solid waste.

        This has to change.  

  4. But I would like to see at least a $1.00 a gal. tax on gas. Gas has been far too cheap in this country for too long. When gas went up to $4 a gal., everyone started dumping the SUV’s and big pickups for smaller vehicles. Now with the price of gas relatively stable at $2.50 and short memories, sales of SUV’s and big pickups are on the upswing.

    Of that gas tax:

       50% to deficit reduction

       25% to mass transit

       25% to renewable energy (direct grants,

              loans, and loan guarantees)

    2. …be a sufficient jolt to change behavior, the way $4/gal was? I’m sceptical.

      A shock is needed, plus a sales job by Obama  presenting a whole package of changes — in the way we live, in the way we think about using petroleum — as a reaction to a challenge equivalent to Pearl Harbor. It needs to be (1) a big enough change to encourage behavior and (2) the resolution to make the change permanent.

      Making it easy, or easily sold, are the wrong criteria.

        2. I agree that people can absorb gradual change to a remarkable degree without getting upset… and without changing their behavior, which is the objective here. Easy to envision $6.59/gal. gasoline in two years with 4 cent weekly increments and no appreciable change in driving habits.  A shock is what’s needed to overcome the inertia and to change the mentality that says the status quo can go on forever.

          (All the while remembering that if the government imposes sudden change, it also needs to have an alternative at hand/in the works.)

          Second, at the risk of getting carried away in the peak oil mentality, there is no contrary evidence so far that the theory of peak oil (which dates from the 1950s) is wrong; just disagreement on when global peak oil production will be (or has already been) reached. Once the perception takes hold that the globe is on the downward slope of production volume, prices won’t rise gradually as production gradually declines; prices will soar instantly to an unforeseen degree on oil markets at every level–from futures markets to retail stations with customers filling extra 5-gal. red plastic containers to store in their garages–as players start buying as much as they can store in anticipation of future price increases/supply shortfalls. A foretaste of how futures markets work came when oil went to $140+/bbl.

          We as a people — and Obama as a president — would be better off if we seized control of this issue now by acting on several fronts at once. (Please don’t forget my four-day workweek and telecommuting/video conferencing proposals: they’re free, give many people 3-day weekends, and cut demand by over 20% at no cost.) Perhaps, or perhaps not, the Gulf disaster could serve as a suitable springboard from which Professor Barry could draw the lesson and preach the gospel. If he doesn’t — and there’s absolutely zero evidence so far that he’s inclined to do so whilst tramping another Louisiana beach — the gurgling pipe will soon be hidden beneath a cap, the story moved off Page 1, and forgotten. Oily pelicans will be so yesterday, and another opportunity missed…again. The great presidents didn’t deal with gradualism; they rose to meet crises and acted with the urgency of now, to coin a phrase.

  7. Everyone knows it. If the idea of increased registration fees for guzzlers is just to punish folks for ownership then it will never pass. I think that doing the fuel tax accomplishes the same thing as it encourages those owners to drive those vehicles less often.

    I also don’t want the fuel tax to be so high that gas sellers can just increase the cost of the fuel itself and have it not be noticed because the tax is even costlier.

    If a fuel tax only decreases demand for fuel then we still haven’t got the revenue for infrastructure.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

61 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!

Colorado Pols