DVD Talk Forum

DVD Talk Forum (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/)
-   Other Talk (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/other-talk-9/)
-   -   Kerry Offers 10-Year Plan for U.S. Energy Independence (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/other-talk/378782-kerry-offers-10-year-plan-u-s-energy-independence.html)

JasonF 08-06-04 02:37 PM

Kerry Offers 10-Year Plan for U.S. Energy Independence
 

Kerry Offers 10-Year Plan for U.S. Energy Independence

Fri Aug 6,11:30 AM ET Add Politics to My Yahoo!


By Thomas Ferraro

KANSAS CITY, Mo. (Reuters) - With crude oil prices at a record high, Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry (news - web sites) on Friday offered a 10-year, $30 billion proposal to move the nation toward energy independence.

Under the measure, aides said, American companies and consumers would receive financial aid to develop and buy more fuel-efficient motor vehicles.

In addition, it would set twin goals to have, by the year 2020, an even 20 percent of the nation's motor fuel and electricity come from alternative sources such as solar, wind, ethanol and biodiesel fuel.

Kerry, on a cross-country campaign tour, arranged to formally announce the proposal during a visit to a family farm outside Kansas City.

The measure would provide $10 billion to help automakers retool plants to build high-technology, fuel-efficient vehicles, and give consumers a tax credit of up to $5,000 to buy them.

It would also earmark $5 billion for a research partnership between government and industry into fuels made from agricultural waste, and $10 billion to transform the current generation of coal-fired utility plants into cleaner and more efficient facilities.

The Massachusetts senator has made energy independence a centerpiece of his campaign for the White House and his proposal fleshed out earlier ones he has promoted on the campaign trail.

The cost of the measure would be partially offset by reinstatement of a tax on polluters, aides said.

Kerry has contended greater energy independence would create jobs, provide for a cleaner environment, bolster security and make sure American soldiers do not have to go to war over Middle East oil.

President Bush (news - web sites) has said a massive energy bill blocked by Kerry and other Senate Democrats would help reduce the demand for foreign oil largely by opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling.

In early trading Friday, oil prices climbed close to $45 a barrel, the highest level in 21 years for U.S. light crude futures on the New York Mercantile Exchange.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...paign_kerry_dc

I thought maybe we could have an election thread that isn't about the Viet Nam war.

Here's the energy policy section of Kerry's website:
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/energy/

I especially like the head-to-head comparison with the current administration entitled "Moving Towards Energy Independence vs. Putting Enron First." ;)

CRM114 08-06-04 02:42 PM

:up: Finally.

but I would have liked to see around $80 billion or so....

icondude 08-06-04 02:45 PM

The biggest problem with his plan is that there is nothing in it for nuclear.

:hscratch:

Trigger 08-06-04 02:45 PM

but he threw his medals... or ribbons... and he didn't really serve in vietnam - he was in china. Why isn't the press covering this??! Damn liberal media... :p

Oops - wrong thread. ;)

No, seriously - this sounds like a good idea on paper. I just hope he does what he says he'll do if elected.

Oh - and how high does the cost of a barrel of oil have to go before it's cheaper to use chicken carcass?

X 08-06-04 02:45 PM

Finally something to talk about.

I have a hard time believing that government can do much about the cost of energy and experience has shown me that when the government gets involved in promoting particular actions it usually has huge negative unintended consequences.

For instance, it's regulations and fines on coal-fired plants that helped get us into an energy shortage in the first place and had the consequence of not allowing them to expand into becoming clean-burning facilities.

I prefer that oil and gas just stay at high prices and let private enterprise work on alternatives while getting government out of the way.

natesfortune 08-06-04 02:46 PM

Re: Kerry Offers 10-Year Plan for U.S. Energy Independence
 

Originally posted by JasonF
I thought maybe we could have an election thread that isn't about the Viet Nam war.
Yes, two whole threads on the issue Kerry himself has made central to his campaign, with major allegations from over 250 veterans challenging that major campaign position.

Shudder to think. How dare we talk about it?

Versus how many "Bush AWOL threads" in this forum this year?

Hmm...

neiname 08-06-04 02:48 PM

Re: Re: Kerry Offers 10-Year Plan for U.S. Energy Independence
 

It would also earmark $5 billion for a research partnership between government and industry into fuels made from agricultural waste, and $10 billion to transform the current generation of coal-fired utility plants into cleaner and more efficient facilities.
Turkey Guts for Oil!!!

CRM114 08-06-04 02:49 PM


Originally posted by X
Finally something to talk about.

I have a hard time believing that government can do much about the cost of energy and experience has shown me that when the government gets involved in promoting particular actions it usually has huge negative unintended consequences.

For instance, it's regulations and fines on coal-fired plants that helped get us into an energy shortage in the first place and had the consequence of not allowing them to expand into becoming clean-burning facilities.

I prefer that oil and gas just stay at high prices and let private enterprise work on alternatives while getting government out of the way.

Some President has to have the balls to try mandates. Private enterprise will NEVER find alternatives. If there were viable alternatives and they were squashed by big oil and regulations, we'd be using them today. Even if we can ween ourselves a bit from oil, its a good thing.

X 08-06-04 02:49 PM


Originally posted by icondude
The biggest problem with his plan is that there is nothing in it for nuclear.

:hscratch:

An excellent point.

Maybe he'll learn about that energy source after the French become our friends.

CRM114 08-06-04 02:49 PM

And just think, we could fund this 4x over with the money we wasted in Iraq.

kvrdave 08-06-04 03:02 PM


Originally posted by CRM114
And just think, we could fund this 4x over with the money we wasted in Iraq.
Thanks for the meaningful contribution.

I like that he has a plan, and darn near any plan is better than us not having one. But I have serious doubts as to any plan from either Bush or Kerry getting accepted. If Bush can't do it with control of the Senate and House, I see Kerry as having no chance. I don't think either can, frankly. Not until Congress decides it wants to, and they don't seem to.

But it is very nice to see him actually have a plan. I also want nukes. Put them in my backyard if necessary. Just like Hanford :D

JasonF 08-06-04 03:02 PM

Re: Re: Kerry Offers 10-Year Plan for U.S. Energy Independence
 


Originally posted by JasonF
I thought maybe we could have an election thread that isn't about the Viet Nam war.
Originally posted by natesfortune
Yes, two whole threads on the issue Kerry himself has made central to his campaign, with major allegations from over 250 veterans challenging that major campaign position.

Shudder to think. How dare we talk about it?

Versus how many "Bush AWOL threads" in this forum this year?

Hmm...

I hate to break it to you, but the Bush AWOL threads are about Viet Nam, too. It's not just a Kerry thing. Right now, there are 3 threads on the first page about Viet Nam -- Bush AWOL, Vets Against Kerry, and Christmas in Cambodia. I thought it might be nice to have a thread about policy. Silly me.

JasonF 08-06-04 03:07 PM


Originally posted by X
Finally something to talk about.

I have a hard time believing that government can do much about the cost of energy and experience has shown me that when the government gets involved in promoting particular actions it usually has huge negative unintended consequences.

For instance, it's regulations and fines on coal-fired plants that helped get us into an energy shortage in the first place and had the consequence of not allowing them to expand into becoming clean-burning facilities.

I prefer that oil and gas just stay at high prices and let private enterprise work on alternatives while getting government out of the way.

Counter-example -- our government's got its hands all over the pharmaceutical research industry through the NIH, and our firms are churning out new drugs at an absolutely astonishing rate.

I agree that nuclear has to be part of our energy plan. Of course, my Dad has worked for the NRC my whole life, so I know some actual facts about nuclear energy instead of the Three-Mile-Island-Chernobyl-Booga-Booga shit most Americans associate with nuclear energy.

natesfortune 08-06-04 03:07 PM

Re: Re: Re: Kerry Offers 10-Year Plan for U.S. Energy Independence
 

Originally posted by JasonF
[B]Originally posted by natesfortune
Yes, two whole threads on the issue Kerry himself has made central to his campaign, with major allegations from over 250 veterans challenging that major campaign position.

Shudder to think. How dare we talk about it?

Versus how many "Bush AWOL threads" in this forum this year?

Hmm...


I hate to break it to you, but the Bush AWOL threads are about Viet Nam, too. It's not just a Kerry thing. Right now, there are 3 threads on the first page about Viet Nam -- Bush AWOL, Vets Against Kerry, and Christmas in Cambodia. I thought it might be nice to have a thread about policy. Silly me.
Point taken. I thought you were trying to begrude us two paltry Kerry threads on the subject when we've had many on the Bush side.

And also, I don't think the Vietnam threads are irrelevant to the campaign - they would be - but John Kerry has decided to make that his main selling point for his campaign.

So if he gets to make it an issue, we get to treat it like one.

As for the energy policy, I don't think Government is the answer. Private enterprise got us oil. Private enterprise has a profit motive, and know that oil will run out soon. Private enterprise knows there's growing resentment over oil and a potential huge market for other sources, and thus private enterprise will find that solution.

Government would best serve that effort by relaxing regulations that stop that kind of innovation.

X 08-06-04 03:10 PM


Originally posted by JasonF
Counter-example -- our government's got its hands all over the pharmaceutical research industry through the NIH, and our firms are churning out new drugs at an absolutely astonishing rate.
I don't think that's a real good example as there are so many drugs that aren't being developed or put on the market solely because of the government-mandated testing that is required. Of course there need to be safeguards but getting the government out of the picture would increase new drugs.

If you want to see the impact of the government on drug/medical research you don't have to go further than stem-cell research.

CRM114 08-06-04 03:10 PM


Originally posted by JasonF
so I know some actual facts about nuclear energy instead of the Three-Mile-Island-Chernobyl-Booga-Booga shit most Americans associate with nuclear energy.
I don't know about booga-booga but you live, what, 1500 miles from TMI. I live 90 miles from TMI and much closer to Limerick. I don't like the idea of my town looking like that Chernobyl website around here a few months ago.

That being said, I don't completely rule out nukes either. I can be convinced.

JasonF 08-06-04 03:11 PM


Originally posted by X
I don't think that's a real good example as there are so many drugs that aren't being developed or put on the market solely because of the testing required. Of course there need to be safeguards but getting the government out of the picture would increase new drugs.

If you want to see the impact of the government on drug/medical research you don't have to go further than stem-cell research.

I was more referring to the fact that a lot of drug research by the Pfizers and Abbott Labs of the world is underwritten, directly or indirectly, through research paid for by NIH.

X 08-06-04 03:13 PM


Originally posted by JasonF
I was more referring to the fact that a lot of drug research by the Pfizers and Abbott Labs of the world is underwritten, directly or indirectly, through research paid for by NIH.
I wouldn't have a big problem with the government saying "here's a big pot of money - take it and see what you come up with."

But when they allocate the money to the areas they think will be fruitful, as Kerry is advocating, they distort the market and the science.

kvrdave 08-06-04 03:13 PM


Originally posted by CRM114
I don't know about booga-booga but you live, what, 1500 miles from TMI. I live 90 miles from TMI and much closer to Limerick. I don't like the idea of my town looking like that Chernobyl website around here a few months ago.

That being said, I don't completely rule out nukes either. I can be convinced.

If TMI taught us anything, it is that people are dumber than we give them credit for. Had the people done absolutely nothing, the system would have shut down by itself. I think we can do it better now.

CRM114 08-06-04 03:20 PM


Originally posted by kvrdave
If TMI taught us anything, it is that people are dumber than we give them credit for. Had the people done absolutely nothing, the system would have shut down by itself. I think we can do it better now.
Like I said, I can be convinced. But being somewhat local to TMI was kind of frightening at the time.

JasonF 08-06-04 03:22 PM


Originally posted by CRM114
I don't know about booga-booga but you live, what, 1500 miles from TMI. I live 90 miles from TMI and much closer to Limerick. I don't like the idea of my town looking like that Chernobyl website around here a few months ago.

That being said, I don't completely rule out nukes either. I can be convinced.

Chicago is actually only about 650 miles from TMI, give or take, and is a lot closer to nuclear plants like the one in Zion. Plus I grew up in Montgomery County, Maryland, which is 75-80 miles from TMI (that's where I was living at the time of TMI). But that's neither here nor there.

TMI was a partial meltdown. A lot of things went wrong. And we still managed to contain the meltdown. So little radioactivity was released into the environment. that the conclusion was that there would be one additional fatal case of cancer due to TMI. Moreover, we completely revamped the way we manage safety at nuclear plants after TMI.

Chernobyl was a graphite-moderated reactor -- a type we don't use in the U.S. precisely because they are so unsafe.

Am I saying that nuclear power is 100% safe? Of course not. But the public has a skewed perception of the danger that nuclear power plants pose. As a result, we under-utilize nuclear power. It's sort of like airplanes -- everyone thinks they are the most dangerous form of transportation, but the statistics show they are actually one of the safest.

Between oil spills and air and groundwater pollution, fossil fuels have killed far more Americans than nuclear power.

Iron Chef 08-06-04 03:24 PM

I will be interesting to see all of the NIMBY people come forward and try to get their congressional reps block having windmill fams built near them.

Red Dog 08-06-04 03:24 PM


Originally posted by JasonF


Am I saying that nuclear power is 100% safe? Of course not. But the public has a skewed perception of the danger that nuclear power plants pose. As a result, we under-utilize nuclear power. It's sort of like airplanes -- everyone thinks they are the most dangerous form of transportation, but the statistics show they are actually one of the safest.


I agree and I lived 75 miles from TMI at the time.

X 08-06-04 03:27 PM

So why isn't nuclear being proposed?

JasonF 08-06-04 03:28 PM


Originally posted by X
I wouldn't have a big problem with the government saying "here's a big pot of money - take it and see what you come up with."

But when they allocate the money to the areas they think will be fruitful, as Kerry is advocating, they distort the market and the science.

But there's got to be some direction. At an extreme, the government could give $200 million to Exxon-Mobil and they could come back and say "We bought all our shareholders jet skis." I think we all agree that a grant should come with a string attached saying it has to be used for energy research. At the other extreme, we don't want the government attaching so many strings that the money has to be used to fund the experiment proposed by Professor I. M. Smart in the February 2003 issue of Energy Science Quarterly. Somewhere in the middle is the appropriate amount of direction. The NIH doesn't just hand out grants -- it hands out grants for specific projects. And when it does its own research, that research is directed toward a particular topic (such as how to reduce arterial plaque, for instance) that the drug companies then build on. It's not like there's just an ATM at the NIH building that Merck scientists can use whenever they are running low on cash.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:44 AM.


Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.