Darth Be'lal
03-29-2005, 11:08 PM
This article is by Thomas Friedman, and was featured in a local newspaper (it's aslo why I stopped buying that newspaper and have resorted to picking up copies left behind in the cafeteria), I'll do a brief synopsis of the article, then go through my thoughts why I disagree with just about every single thing in it, then I'll link to it so you can read it for yourself.
The article starts out with the usual leftist Bush bashing (it's customary now amongst the Left, kinda like having to take your hat off when you enter a building). There he is, ol'Bush, trying to privatize social security and destroy the New Deal while serious problems are on the horizon. In this instance, it's the energy crisis. OH, did I mention that Bush has done NOTHING to ease our dependence on oil.
THEN he goes on about how using oil does strengthen and nourishes the despotic leaders in the Mid East and in Venezuala.
And if that's not enough, there are some 800 million cars in use today, when India and China modernize, sometime around 2050, it'll be 3.25 billion cars all contributing to global warming.
So what to do about it. Friedman calls it a "geo-green" strategy that would marry geopolitics, energy policy and environmentalism.' Here's his little gems of a proposal.
First off, TAX gas use. Gas should be four bucks a gallon, no matter what it costs for crude oil.
Secondly, nuclear power plants need to be contructed and implemented. The less fossil fuels we use, the less greenhouse gasses goes up into the atmoshpere.
A "carbon tax" on any and all power plants that emit "greenhouse gasses." This would encourage corporations to use cleaner sources of fuels such as windpower, hydroelectric dams and solar power.
Then Friedman has the utter gall to these strategies "smart fiscal and climate philosophy."
What it is a huge boondoggle.
Let me do the reality check.
First off, the only parts of Friedman's little proposals that the liberals would stand for would be the tax increases. That is the only thing that would get passed. And if that happened? WELL, anybody working nowadays already knows that about a quarter of one's income is already taken off the top in taxes. That is before state income tax, sales tax, property tax and car tax. Add in these, and it's now more like HALF of your income would go for taxes, because that tax would then be applied to just about every single thing you do. Pick up groceries at the supermarket? The tax levied on fossil fuels would be added to every single thing you bought because the things you buy have to get there using fossil fuels. Turn on the light at home? You'll pay as much in taxes as you would in electricity. You'd have less money, so you'd spend less and the economy would go south, fast. THEN there is the added blow of jobs being lost. We complain about jobs going overseas. Why would a company stay here in America and pay the high prices for power when it can go to China or India and pay half the costs in power and a quarter in labor costs. So there go the jobs. Oh, and that reminds me, don't think for a moment that the Chinese (or India or Russia for that matter) will turn "green" and start doing things environmentally sound. Their only concern will be price per barrell for oil. If there's one thing the Chi-Coms do NOT stand for, it's for other people to mess with them. You can get the U.N. and the Euros to whine about global warming and suggest a Kyoto Treaty with them or whatnot and the Chi-Coms will go and tell the U.N. and the Euros to go kiss their ass! Basically, all the Euros and the U.N. would do at that point is to tell the Chinese to bend over! So, while our economy gets wrecked, the developing Nation's economy will get stronger.
About alternative sources of power:
Hell will freeze over the day a new Nuclear power plant gets built here in the U.S. (Maybe THAT will stop global warming) The environmentalist wackos are already throwing fits about the nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain, do you honestly think they'll stand for a new Nuclear plant being built? We'll hear all about nuclear meltdowns and the China Syndrome and Chernobyl and isn't it just easier to tax gas some more? So THAT'S a no go.
Wind Energy? Nope! Apparently wind turbines kill birds, lots of them, and places that have the kind of wind needed to make electricity (read off the coast of Cape Cod, where the rich and powerful live) are strictly off limits. I could see a Wind electrical farm being built in downtown Hobboken New Jersey amidst the dumpsters and desolate buildings, but not where it would clutter up the view of the open ocean that the Pilgrims saw (again, read off the coast of Cape Cod).
Hydroelectric Energy? No again! This time I actually agree with the environmentalist wackos. Dams wreak absolute havoc with fish populations as well as insect life that lives on and under the water (I'm a fly fisherman and am well acquainted with what lives in a free flowing river) PLUS you have the problems of silt build up, the accumulations of salt in the western U.S. So, that's a no go as well.
Solar energy? An absolute joke! I've been hearing the promise of how great solar energy is since I was a kid and watching "3-2-1 Contact" and they have NEVER made a solar farm that actually turned a profit. They only work in deserts, take up acres and acres of space and have a tendency to NOT work when the sun goes down or when it rains.
Back to taxes. I really, really loathe the idea of our government cloaking itself in idealism and using that as an excuse to tax people others deem are doing polictically incorrect things like driving. Taxes are for funding the government, not as an instrument of social change, that idea doesn't work. Look what happened when Big Tobacco got sued. The money was supposed to be used to print out pamphlets informing Joe Citizen that, yes, smoking is bad for you and for cancer research. It is NOW being used to plug holes in state deficits and for pork. With those kind of uses for tobacco taxes, do you honestly feel that ANYBODY in power really wish for smokers to quit? It would be the same thing with a gasoline and "carbon" tax.
About Bush not doing a dam thing for the environment. Friedman conveniently (gotta love memory lapses) forgets that Bush has proposed some 1.2 BILLION to fund a "Freedom Car" This is a vehicle that uses hydrogen for power. I think it's a great idea but for two things. We can't effeciently seperate hydrogen from water of fossil fuels and we can't get hydrogen from escaping whatever container it's placed in. Other than that, it's a great idea! Dammit.
What would I do if I had control of the U.S. energy policy?
First off, start drilling for oil, there's plenty in ANWR, the Gulf of Mexico and off the coast of California. I'd get serious about meeting our needs for oil.
I WOULD have more Nuclear power plants built, and get the Yucca facility up and running.
Find a way to exploit shale oil. I'd put a tarriff on foreign sources of oil to protect a fledgeling shale oil business, and I'd find a way to exploit the tar sands in Canada. There's also artificial petroluem.
More trash to energy plants. We have two locally where I live. Americans produce plenty of garbage, which can be made into plenty of energy, dammit.
Looking into converting cars to use natural gas or propane. That DOES work, produces way less emmissions and makes cars last longer than those running on gasoline.
Friedman article is why I don't trust the Left to run our country. Because they will talk bravely about new sources of energy and all that, but in the end, all they will do is raise taxes.
Dammit.
Friedman Article (http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/5317111.html)
Freedom Car (http://www.ford.com/en/innovation/engineFuelTechnology/freedomCar.htm)
The article starts out with the usual leftist Bush bashing (it's customary now amongst the Left, kinda like having to take your hat off when you enter a building). There he is, ol'Bush, trying to privatize social security and destroy the New Deal while serious problems are on the horizon. In this instance, it's the energy crisis. OH, did I mention that Bush has done NOTHING to ease our dependence on oil.
THEN he goes on about how using oil does strengthen and nourishes the despotic leaders in the Mid East and in Venezuala.
And if that's not enough, there are some 800 million cars in use today, when India and China modernize, sometime around 2050, it'll be 3.25 billion cars all contributing to global warming.
So what to do about it. Friedman calls it a "geo-green" strategy that would marry geopolitics, energy policy and environmentalism.' Here's his little gems of a proposal.
First off, TAX gas use. Gas should be four bucks a gallon, no matter what it costs for crude oil.
Secondly, nuclear power plants need to be contructed and implemented. The less fossil fuels we use, the less greenhouse gasses goes up into the atmoshpere.
A "carbon tax" on any and all power plants that emit "greenhouse gasses." This would encourage corporations to use cleaner sources of fuels such as windpower, hydroelectric dams and solar power.
Then Friedman has the utter gall to these strategies "smart fiscal and climate philosophy."
What it is a huge boondoggle.
Let me do the reality check.
First off, the only parts of Friedman's little proposals that the liberals would stand for would be the tax increases. That is the only thing that would get passed. And if that happened? WELL, anybody working nowadays already knows that about a quarter of one's income is already taken off the top in taxes. That is before state income tax, sales tax, property tax and car tax. Add in these, and it's now more like HALF of your income would go for taxes, because that tax would then be applied to just about every single thing you do. Pick up groceries at the supermarket? The tax levied on fossil fuels would be added to every single thing you bought because the things you buy have to get there using fossil fuels. Turn on the light at home? You'll pay as much in taxes as you would in electricity. You'd have less money, so you'd spend less and the economy would go south, fast. THEN there is the added blow of jobs being lost. We complain about jobs going overseas. Why would a company stay here in America and pay the high prices for power when it can go to China or India and pay half the costs in power and a quarter in labor costs. So there go the jobs. Oh, and that reminds me, don't think for a moment that the Chinese (or India or Russia for that matter) will turn "green" and start doing things environmentally sound. Their only concern will be price per barrell for oil. If there's one thing the Chi-Coms do NOT stand for, it's for other people to mess with them. You can get the U.N. and the Euros to whine about global warming and suggest a Kyoto Treaty with them or whatnot and the Chi-Coms will go and tell the U.N. and the Euros to go kiss their ass! Basically, all the Euros and the U.N. would do at that point is to tell the Chinese to bend over! So, while our economy gets wrecked, the developing Nation's economy will get stronger.
About alternative sources of power:
Hell will freeze over the day a new Nuclear power plant gets built here in the U.S. (Maybe THAT will stop global warming) The environmentalist wackos are already throwing fits about the nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain, do you honestly think they'll stand for a new Nuclear plant being built? We'll hear all about nuclear meltdowns and the China Syndrome and Chernobyl and isn't it just easier to tax gas some more? So THAT'S a no go.
Wind Energy? Nope! Apparently wind turbines kill birds, lots of them, and places that have the kind of wind needed to make electricity (read off the coast of Cape Cod, where the rich and powerful live) are strictly off limits. I could see a Wind electrical farm being built in downtown Hobboken New Jersey amidst the dumpsters and desolate buildings, but not where it would clutter up the view of the open ocean that the Pilgrims saw (again, read off the coast of Cape Cod).
Hydroelectric Energy? No again! This time I actually agree with the environmentalist wackos. Dams wreak absolute havoc with fish populations as well as insect life that lives on and under the water (I'm a fly fisherman and am well acquainted with what lives in a free flowing river) PLUS you have the problems of silt build up, the accumulations of salt in the western U.S. So, that's a no go as well.
Solar energy? An absolute joke! I've been hearing the promise of how great solar energy is since I was a kid and watching "3-2-1 Contact" and they have NEVER made a solar farm that actually turned a profit. They only work in deserts, take up acres and acres of space and have a tendency to NOT work when the sun goes down or when it rains.
Back to taxes. I really, really loathe the idea of our government cloaking itself in idealism and using that as an excuse to tax people others deem are doing polictically incorrect things like driving. Taxes are for funding the government, not as an instrument of social change, that idea doesn't work. Look what happened when Big Tobacco got sued. The money was supposed to be used to print out pamphlets informing Joe Citizen that, yes, smoking is bad for you and for cancer research. It is NOW being used to plug holes in state deficits and for pork. With those kind of uses for tobacco taxes, do you honestly feel that ANYBODY in power really wish for smokers to quit? It would be the same thing with a gasoline and "carbon" tax.
About Bush not doing a dam thing for the environment. Friedman conveniently (gotta love memory lapses) forgets that Bush has proposed some 1.2 BILLION to fund a "Freedom Car" This is a vehicle that uses hydrogen for power. I think it's a great idea but for two things. We can't effeciently seperate hydrogen from water of fossil fuels and we can't get hydrogen from escaping whatever container it's placed in. Other than that, it's a great idea! Dammit.
What would I do if I had control of the U.S. energy policy?
First off, start drilling for oil, there's plenty in ANWR, the Gulf of Mexico and off the coast of California. I'd get serious about meeting our needs for oil.
I WOULD have more Nuclear power plants built, and get the Yucca facility up and running.
Find a way to exploit shale oil. I'd put a tarriff on foreign sources of oil to protect a fledgeling shale oil business, and I'd find a way to exploit the tar sands in Canada. There's also artificial petroluem.
More trash to energy plants. We have two locally where I live. Americans produce plenty of garbage, which can be made into plenty of energy, dammit.
Looking into converting cars to use natural gas or propane. That DOES work, produces way less emmissions and makes cars last longer than those running on gasoline.
Friedman article is why I don't trust the Left to run our country. Because they will talk bravely about new sources of energy and all that, but in the end, all they will do is raise taxes.
Dammit.
Friedman Article (http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/5317111.html)
Freedom Car (http://www.ford.com/en/innovation/engineFuelTechnology/freedomCar.htm)