Speaking of the election

[Mellyrose]

I'm not TRYING to stir the pot, but this is something my company is working on. Let the games begin:

http://www.greenprimary.org

Also:

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/04/25/op ... ref=slogin

April 25, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
Turning the Election Green

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

O.K. class, it’s time for another news quiz. I’ll give you the question and you tell me who asked it and why it was significant. Ready? Here goes:

“Mr. President, how would you rate yourself as an environmentalist? What specifically has your administration done to improve the condition of our nation’s air and water supply?” You’ll never get it. ... The questioner was James Hubb, a member of the audience at the second presidential debate between George W. Bush and John Kerry at Washington University in St. Louis on Oct. 8, 2004.

What’s the significance? It was the only question about energy or environmental policy that was posed in any of the three presidential debates in 2004. Hard to believe when you consider the salience of these issues today. Is it any wonder we still don’t have a serious energy policy?

We can’t afford to make this mistake again. In this election cycle, we need to hold a “Green Debate,” devoted only to energy and environmental questions. I would suggest Tulane University in New Orleans on Aug. 29, 2007 — the second anniversary of Katrina. That would give the candidates, Republicans and Democrats, all summer to develop positions and it would give the voters all fall to examine them before the big primaries in February 2008.

I would like to see each party’s candidates questioned separately, so Republican voters and Democrats can each focus on their primary candidates. The questioning should be done by a three-person panel consisting of one climate scientist, one energy investor and one college student, since young people will be the ones most affected by global warming.

We can’t let ethanol-promoting farmers in Iowa determine our energy policy anymore by virtue of the early Iowa primary. For too long, all we’ve had in this country is energy politics, not energy policy, and that is why we have this incoherent mess of energy systems, standards and fuels.

“A new conversation has started in the country — a new energy economy is what the people want,” said Carl Pope, director of the Sierra Club. To get there, though, we need to force politicians to start thinking about going “green” as part of our national security strategy, as a Plan B for disengaging from Iraq and still driving reform in the Middle East, as an economic opportunity, as a way to restore U.S. leadership, and as an answer for climate change.

Since addressing all these issues will require a carbon tax, or a really serious cap-and-trade system, or tighter mileage and efficiency standards — i.e., sacrifice — we need our candidates to be talking about such things in the campaign so they have a mandate to act if elected.

A group of environmental entrepreneurs, including Andrew Shapiro of GreenOrder and Jesse Fink of Marshall Street Management, just created a Web site, GreenPrimary.org, to host online forums where, after the Green Debate, voters can study the different candidates’ policy positions and even vote for the one they think is most serious. “The 2008 presidential campaign will present the first opportunity for a national candidate to make sustainability a breakthrough electoral issue,” Mr. Shapiro argues.

A new survey released last week by the Democratic polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, conducted for the Center for American Progress, underscores that large majorities of independents (59 percent) and Democrats (76 percent) support action now to stop global warming and make the U.S. energy-independent, along with a significant bloc of Republicans (41 percent).

“Only 27 percent of people feel that our energy policy is headed in the right direction, while 65 percent say our energy policy is seriously off on the wrong track,” the Greenberg firm said. “Moreover, a majority of Americans (52 percent) believes the U.S. is either falling or has fallen far behind other countries in developing clean, alternative energy. Only 14 percent of people believe we lead the world in developing these technologies.”

They’re right. The biggest energy deficit we have right now in America is the energy to lead on this issue — to overcome all the entrenched interests that have tied us in knots and have left our country with what the energy expert Gal Luft calls “the sum of all lobbies” instead of the sum of the best energy practices.

The best way to overcome that is to elevate the issue during the campaign to a level that forces everyone to put a serious energy/environment platform on the table and builds a real mandate for the next president.

[T-Bird76]

Here's the deal. Until the upfront cost of this “Green technology” comes down to below the current fossil energy cost its not going to be embraced. While the cost of gas is high it’s still cheaper then green energy.

Hell I'd love to put solar panels on my roof but the cost to install a new oil burner that uses less oil then I'm using now is more attractive, I'll save some energy but I'm still using fossil technology. Another example, the cost of a Hybrid car is thousands more in upfront and future MX costs then a regular car. Compare a Toyota Corolla with a Prius, the Corolla cost a few thousand less, $3000 to $5000 buys a lot of gas.

Btw what is the sampling in that poll they speak of? 52% of Americans, what Americans, who did they poll? Sounds like the same sampling of people who voted JFK and LGA as the two best airports in the nation.

This is nothing more then a minority group of people with money and a voice to push their agenda that simply does not work for middle class America.

Ethanol out of Brazil is cheaper as its made out of sugar cane. In fact Brazil does not inport oil. They use sugar cane as their source of fuel.

Our Ethanol costs more because we use grains and the process to convert grains to ethanol is more expensive. Why do we use grains? America grows grains. Its that simple. Why do the Brazilians use sugar cane? Brazil grows sugar cane. Simple again.

We need to bypass the farmer's lobby and stop using grains to get cheap Ethanol.

[T-Bird76]

We need to bypass the farmer's lobby and stop using grains to get cheap Ethanol.

Good luck with that, I don't it happening.

Quote:
We need to bypass the farmer's lobby and stop using grains to get cheap Ethanol.


Good luck with that, I don't it happening.

True.

[Matt Molnar]

We need to bypass the farmer's lobby and stop using grains to get cheap Ethanol.

I don't see ethanol as being viable in the U.S. Using our grains will drive up the price of food worldwide, and we don't have much land that can grow sugar.

[Mellyrose]

I think that no matter WHAT your views on this topic are, you should watch this clip from the Colbert report. The Friedman article made it into his Tip/Wag right after the Shrek bit (which was also very funny)....

http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload ... ideo=86006

[bonanzabucks]

Ethanol out of Brazil is cheaper as its made out of sugar cane. In fact Brazil does not import oil. They use sugar cane as their source of fuel.

Our Ethanol costs more because we use grains and the process to convert grains to ethanol is more expensive. Why do we use grains? America grows grains. Its that simple. Why do the Brazilians use sugar cane? Brazil grows sugar cane. Simple again.

We need to bypass the farmer's lobby and stop using grains to get cheap Ethanol.

True that Brazil does not import any oil anymore. But it's false that ethanol (or alcool, as they call it) is their sole source of fuel. Brazil has large oil reserves off the coast of Rio de Janeirio. They are 100% self-sufficient when it comes to their energy sources, which is why they've generally been less influenced (or blackmailed) by Chavez in that region.

Actually, alcool has really gone a long way down there. They're even producing hybrid engines that run on both gas and alcool. Pretty cool. However, most people I know down there say that gas is generally better than alcool even though it's more expensive.