R-Squared Energy Blog

Pure Energy

Democrats and Big Oil

Yesterday I participated in a blogger conference call with the American Petroleum Institute. The topic was Industry Earnings and Recent Oil Prices, and the audio and transcript may be found here.

My question was a political question regarding the seemingly permanent hostile relationship between oil companies and Democrats. My question, and comments that followed:

24:15 MR. RAPIER: Okay. One more question from me, a political question: If you look at political contributions, the contributions from oil companies to Republicans are – tend to outweigh those of Democrats and, subsequently, Democrats have a pretty hostile view toward oil companies. And I’m wondering how we improve that relationship. This is one thing that’s always frustrated me, was that there just seems to be this incredible distaste from Democrats and I never understood why we don’t open up a better relationship here with them, the Democratic leadership.

I think we’re about to have a Democrat in the White House who’s threatening windfall profits and all kinds of things and I can’t understand why we don‟t sit down and open up a better dialogue with the Democratic leadership.

25:01 MR. PUGLIARESI: You know, I have a little story to tell you about that. I happen to have been in a little meeting with Bennett Johnston, the former, as you know, the former senator from Louisiana. And he‟s a Democrat. And he said, you know, he was talking about – I sort of asked him a similar question. You know, why is the Democratic Party at war with the oil industry? I mean, in 2006, it was a cash cow. It generated like $130 billion of revenue to the government. I mean, compare that to the problems they’re having with GM. You know, they should be doing award dinners for these guys. And he said, you know, when we had Democrats from oil-producing states, we didn’t have these problems, because then, the party was afraid – (chuckles) – to overdo it. So you may be – we may be ending up in that direction in the next year if the polls turn out the way they seem to be.

26:53 CINDY KILKENNY: This is Cindy Kilkenny from Fairly Conservative. And I trained as a political scientist and I have to say it’s definitely a wedge issue and it’s very insightful. And I grew up in Oklahoma. My family – my brother is still in the oil patch and he’s been, so I see both sides of this and I know how it’s being used and it‟s just about what it redeems for whoever wants it at that point.

I don’t expect this relationship to get any better with a new administration, but I would certainly like to see it improve. As I have said before, I am probably a little left of center (although I have little in common with the far left or far right), but I think the Democratic party has the more naive view of energy policy. I get the impression that the leadership thinks that if they could just drive the oil companies out of business, we would all live happily ever after on clean, renewable energy.

Advertisements

October 31, 2008 - Posted by | energy policy, politics

600 Comments

  1. Good question, Robert.

    Cindy, I think nailed it. Yes, wedge issues for manipulation of the populace.

    The only thing I can think of to combat this, is community based on common ground. Coupled with tolerance for differences, such a structure would seem to be quite resilient.

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | October 31, 2008

  2. Good question, Robert.

    Cindy, I think nailed it. Yes, wedge issues for manipulation of the populace.

    The only thing I can think of to combat this, is community based on common ground. Coupled with tolerance for differences, such a structure would seem to be quite resilient.

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | October 31, 2008

  3. Good question, Robert.

    Cindy, I think nailed it. Yes, wedge issues for manipulation of the populace.

    The only thing I can think of to combat this, is community based on common ground. Coupled with tolerance for differences, such a structure would seem to be quite resilient.

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | October 31, 2008

  4. Good question, Robert.

    Cindy, I think nailed it. Yes, wedge issues for manipulation of the populace.

    The only thing I can think of to combat this, is community based on common ground. Coupled with tolerance for differences, such a structure would seem to be quite resilient.

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | October 31, 2008

  5. Good question, Robert.

    Cindy, I think nailed it. Yes, wedge issues for manipulation of the populace.

    The only thing I can think of to combat this, is community based on common ground. Coupled with tolerance for differences, such a structure would seem to be quite resilient.

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | October 31, 2008

  6. Good question, Robert.

    Cindy, I think nailed it. Yes, wedge issues for manipulation of the populace.

    The only thing I can think of to combat this, is community based on common ground. Coupled with tolerance for differences, such a structure would seem to be quite resilient.

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | October 31, 2008

  7. Good question, Robert.

    Cindy, I think nailed it. Yes, wedge issues for manipulation of the populace.

    The only thing I can think of to combat this, is community based on common ground. Coupled with tolerance for differences, such a structure would seem to be quite resilient.

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | October 31, 2008

  8. Good question, Robert.Cindy, I think nailed it. Yes, wedge issues for manipulation of the populace.The only thing I can think of to combat this, is community based on common ground. Coupled with tolerance for differences, such a structure would seem to be quite resilient.RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | October 31, 2008

  9. RR-
    I think things have become so partisan, people just adopt positions based on what their party wants. In the New Yorker magazine this week is an interview with Chuck Hagel, the conservative R-Party Senator, former Marine, who opposes the Iraq war. He said none of the Republican Senators would have supported the war, if it had been Clinton’s war.
    In other words, soldiers die, we spent trillions, but it not what it right for the country, but what your party wants.
    The Dems have got themselves into a terrible position, being “against” the oil companies. Productive people are always the good guys, never the bad guys.
    Oddly enough, McCain and Palin have been bashing “Big Oil” to lusty cheers, and McCain has promised no oil drilling off of Florida or in ANWR.
    Even more oddly, in her screwball campaign, Palin has said Alaskans own the resources of Alaska, and that is why every Alaskan, man, woman or child, is getting a check for $3,000+ from the State of Alaska this year.
    By the way, she calls Obama a socialist. She is also the one who used tax money and debt to build a public hockey rink, that most necessary of public services.
    I sure hope the Dems get off of their schtick that Big Auto or Big Oil are the bad guys, and remember how much we need productive people in this country. The Dems make themselves a lot of political adversaries by their snottitudes.
    I also wish the R-Party would realize we are not going to drill ourselves of out this mess we are in. We have to conserve, and that can only happen with much higher gasoline taxes.
    On energy issues, it is hard to like either party right now. Bush’s idea of smart, progressive energy is corn ethanol.
    Yeah, not a lot to choose from.

    Comment by benny "peak demand" cole | November 1, 2008

  10. RR-
    I think things have become so partisan, people just adopt positions based on what their party wants. In the New Yorker magazine this week is an interview with Chuck Hagel, the conservative R-Party Senator, former Marine, who opposes the Iraq war. He said none of the Republican Senators would have supported the war, if it had been Clinton’s war.
    In other words, soldiers die, we spent trillions, but it not what it right for the country, but what your party wants.
    The Dems have got themselves into a terrible position, being “against” the oil companies. Productive people are always the good guys, never the bad guys.
    Oddly enough, McCain and Palin have been bashing “Big Oil” to lusty cheers, and McCain has promised no oil drilling off of Florida or in ANWR.
    Even more oddly, in her screwball campaign, Palin has said Alaskans own the resources of Alaska, and that is why every Alaskan, man, woman or child, is getting a check for $3,000+ from the State of Alaska this year.
    By the way, she calls Obama a socialist. She is also the one who used tax money and debt to build a public hockey rink, that most necessary of public services.
    I sure hope the Dems get off of their schtick that Big Auto or Big Oil are the bad guys, and remember how much we need productive people in this country. The Dems make themselves a lot of political adversaries by their snottitudes.
    I also wish the R-Party would realize we are not going to drill ourselves of out this mess we are in. We have to conserve, and that can only happen with much higher gasoline taxes.
    On energy issues, it is hard to like either party right now. Bush’s idea of smart, progressive energy is corn ethanol.
    Yeah, not a lot to choose from.

    Comment by benny "peak demand" cole | November 1, 2008

  11. RR-
    I think things have become so partisan, people just adopt positions based on what their party wants. In the New Yorker magazine this week is an interview with Chuck Hagel, the conservative R-Party Senator, former Marine, who opposes the Iraq war. He said none of the Republican Senators would have supported the war, if it had been Clinton’s war.
    In other words, soldiers die, we spent trillions, but it not what it right for the country, but what your party wants.
    The Dems have got themselves into a terrible position, being “against” the oil companies. Productive people are always the good guys, never the bad guys.
    Oddly enough, McCain and Palin have been bashing “Big Oil” to lusty cheers, and McCain has promised no oil drilling off of Florida or in ANWR.
    Even more oddly, in her screwball campaign, Palin has said Alaskans own the resources of Alaska, and that is why every Alaskan, man, woman or child, is getting a check for $3,000+ from the State of Alaska this year.
    By the way, she calls Obama a socialist. She is also the one who used tax money and debt to build a public hockey rink, that most necessary of public services.
    I sure hope the Dems get off of their schtick that Big Auto or Big Oil are the bad guys, and remember how much we need productive people in this country. The Dems make themselves a lot of political adversaries by their snottitudes.
    I also wish the R-Party would realize we are not going to drill ourselves of out this mess we are in. We have to conserve, and that can only happen with much higher gasoline taxes.
    On energy issues, it is hard to like either party right now. Bush’s idea of smart, progressive energy is corn ethanol.
    Yeah, not a lot to choose from.

    Comment by benny "peak demand" cole | November 1, 2008

  12. RR-
    I think things have become so partisan, people just adopt positions based on what their party wants. In the New Yorker magazine this week is an interview with Chuck Hagel, the conservative R-Party Senator, former Marine, who opposes the Iraq war. He said none of the Republican Senators would have supported the war, if it had been Clinton’s war.
    In other words, soldiers die, we spent trillions, but it not what it right for the country, but what your party wants.
    The Dems have got themselves into a terrible position, being “against” the oil companies. Productive people are always the good guys, never the bad guys.
    Oddly enough, McCain and Palin have been bashing “Big Oil” to lusty cheers, and McCain has promised no oil drilling off of Florida or in ANWR.
    Even more oddly, in her screwball campaign, Palin has said Alaskans own the resources of Alaska, and that is why every Alaskan, man, woman or child, is getting a check for $3,000+ from the State of Alaska this year.
    By the way, she calls Obama a socialist. She is also the one who used tax money and debt to build a public hockey rink, that most necessary of public services.
    I sure hope the Dems get off of their schtick that Big Auto or Big Oil are the bad guys, and remember how much we need productive people in this country. The Dems make themselves a lot of political adversaries by their snottitudes.
    I also wish the R-Party would realize we are not going to drill ourselves of out this mess we are in. We have to conserve, and that can only happen with much higher gasoline taxes.
    On energy issues, it is hard to like either party right now. Bush’s idea of smart, progressive energy is corn ethanol.
    Yeah, not a lot to choose from.

    Comment by benny "peak demand" cole | November 1, 2008

  13. RR-
    I think things have become so partisan, people just adopt positions based on what their party wants. In the New Yorker magazine this week is an interview with Chuck Hagel, the conservative R-Party Senator, former Marine, who opposes the Iraq war. He said none of the Republican Senators would have supported the war, if it had been Clinton’s war.
    In other words, soldiers die, we spent trillions, but it not what it right for the country, but what your party wants.
    The Dems have got themselves into a terrible position, being “against” the oil companies. Productive people are always the good guys, never the bad guys.
    Oddly enough, McCain and Palin have been bashing “Big Oil” to lusty cheers, and McCain has promised no oil drilling off of Florida or in ANWR.
    Even more oddly, in her screwball campaign, Palin has said Alaskans own the resources of Alaska, and that is why every Alaskan, man, woman or child, is getting a check for $3,000+ from the State of Alaska this year.
    By the way, she calls Obama a socialist. She is also the one who used tax money and debt to build a public hockey rink, that most necessary of public services.
    I sure hope the Dems get off of their schtick that Big Auto or Big Oil are the bad guys, and remember how much we need productive people in this country. The Dems make themselves a lot of political adversaries by their snottitudes.
    I also wish the R-Party would realize we are not going to drill ourselves of out this mess we are in. We have to conserve, and that can only happen with much higher gasoline taxes.
    On energy issues, it is hard to like either party right now. Bush’s idea of smart, progressive energy is corn ethanol.
    Yeah, not a lot to choose from.

    Comment by benny "peak demand" cole | November 1, 2008

  14. RR-
    I think things have become so partisan, people just adopt positions based on what their party wants. In the New Yorker magazine this week is an interview with Chuck Hagel, the conservative R-Party Senator, former Marine, who opposes the Iraq war. He said none of the Republican Senators would have supported the war, if it had been Clinton’s war.
    In other words, soldiers die, we spent trillions, but it not what it right for the country, but what your party wants.
    The Dems have got themselves into a terrible position, being “against” the oil companies. Productive people are always the good guys, never the bad guys.
    Oddly enough, McCain and Palin have been bashing “Big Oil” to lusty cheers, and McCain has promised no oil drilling off of Florida or in ANWR.
    Even more oddly, in her screwball campaign, Palin has said Alaskans own the resources of Alaska, and that is why every Alaskan, man, woman or child, is getting a check for $3,000+ from the State of Alaska this year.
    By the way, she calls Obama a socialist. She is also the one who used tax money and debt to build a public hockey rink, that most necessary of public services.
    I sure hope the Dems get off of their schtick that Big Auto or Big Oil are the bad guys, and remember how much we need productive people in this country. The Dems make themselves a lot of political adversaries by their snottitudes.
    I also wish the R-Party would realize we are not going to drill ourselves of out this mess we are in. We have to conserve, and that can only happen with much higher gasoline taxes.
    On energy issues, it is hard to like either party right now. Bush’s idea of smart, progressive energy is corn ethanol.
    Yeah, not a lot to choose from.

    Comment by benny "peak demand" cole | November 1, 2008

  15. RR-
    I think things have become so partisan, people just adopt positions based on what their party wants. In the New Yorker magazine this week is an interview with Chuck Hagel, the conservative R-Party Senator, former Marine, who opposes the Iraq war. He said none of the Republican Senators would have supported the war, if it had been Clinton’s war.
    In other words, soldiers die, we spent trillions, but it not what it right for the country, but what your party wants.
    The Dems have got themselves into a terrible position, being “against” the oil companies. Productive people are always the good guys, never the bad guys.
    Oddly enough, McCain and Palin have been bashing “Big Oil” to lusty cheers, and McCain has promised no oil drilling off of Florida or in ANWR.
    Even more oddly, in her screwball campaign, Palin has said Alaskans own the resources of Alaska, and that is why every Alaskan, man, woman or child, is getting a check for $3,000+ from the State of Alaska this year.
    By the way, she calls Obama a socialist. She is also the one who used tax money and debt to build a public hockey rink, that most necessary of public services.
    I sure hope the Dems get off of their schtick that Big Auto or Big Oil are the bad guys, and remember how much we need productive people in this country. The Dems make themselves a lot of political adversaries by their snottitudes.
    I also wish the R-Party would realize we are not going to drill ourselves of out this mess we are in. We have to conserve, and that can only happen with much higher gasoline taxes.
    On energy issues, it is hard to like either party right now. Bush’s idea of smart, progressive energy is corn ethanol.
    Yeah, not a lot to choose from.

    Comment by benny "peak demand" cole | November 1, 2008

  16. RR-I think things have become so partisan, people just adopt positions based on what their party wants. In the New Yorker magazine this week is an interview with Chuck Hagel, the conservative R-Party Senator, former Marine, who opposes the Iraq war. He said none of the Republican Senators would have supported the war, if it had been Clinton’s war.In other words, soldiers die, we spent trillions, but it not what it right for the country, but what your party wants. The Dems have got themselves into a terrible position, being “against” the oil companies. Productive people are always the good guys, never the bad guys. Oddly enough, McCain and Palin have been bashing “Big Oil” to lusty cheers, and McCain has promised no oil drilling off of Florida or in ANWR.Even more oddly, in her screwball campaign, Palin has said Alaskans own the resources of Alaska, and that is why every Alaskan, man, woman or child, is getting a check for $3,000+ from the State of Alaska this year. By the way, she calls Obama a socialist. She is also the one who used tax money and debt to build a public hockey rink, that most necessary of public services. I sure hope the Dems get off of their schtick that Big Auto or Big Oil are the bad guys, and remember how much we need productive people in this country. The Dems make themselves a lot of political adversaries by their snottitudes. I also wish the R-Party would realize we are not going to drill ourselves of out this mess we are in. We have to conserve, and that can only happen with much higher gasoline taxes.On energy issues, it is hard to like either party right now. Bush’s idea of smart, progressive energy is corn ethanol. Yeah, not a lot to choose from.

    Comment by benny "peak demand" cole | November 1, 2008

  17. If I look at energy policy from the last 8 years, I believe we an incredibly naive policy that believes in unlimited fossil fuel consumption and production. Almost divinely inspired consumption.

    I see the democratic policy to be an incredibly naive policy that looks at big-oil as the boogie man, and believes that conservation and alternative energy is the only route to salvation.

    From this perspective, I believe both parties are equal.

    What is different between them; or more specifically, between Barack Obama and John McCain (or President Bush), is that I believe the climate in the republican is such that thoughts dissident from the party orthodoxy is so difficult for their leadership to comprehend.

    I think Barack Obama in the context of the democratic party can support a variety of policies not be considered anti-party. He can support Coal, or oppose it, he can support nuclear, or oppose it.

    This gives him the opportunity to craft a multi-faceted policy, rather than one based on near-religious orthodoxy (like the republican party).

    So while Barack’s position might be naive in some aspects, his party gives him the opportunity (should he choose to use it) to develop something based on critical thinking.

    I don’t believe John McCain would be allowed to grow much beyond Drill Baby Drill.

    Mike

    Comment by Mike | November 1, 2008

  18. If I look at energy policy from the last 8 years, I believe we an incredibly naive policy that believes in unlimited fossil fuel consumption and production. Almost divinely inspired consumption.

    I see the democratic policy to be an incredibly naive policy that looks at big-oil as the boogie man, and believes that conservation and alternative energy is the only route to salvation.

    From this perspective, I believe both parties are equal.

    What is different between them; or more specifically, between Barack Obama and John McCain (or President Bush), is that I believe the climate in the republican is such that thoughts dissident from the party orthodoxy is so difficult for their leadership to comprehend.

    I think Barack Obama in the context of the democratic party can support a variety of policies not be considered anti-party. He can support Coal, or oppose it, he can support nuclear, or oppose it.

    This gives him the opportunity to craft a multi-faceted policy, rather than one based on near-religious orthodoxy (like the republican party).

    So while Barack’s position might be naive in some aspects, his party gives him the opportunity (should he choose to use it) to develop something based on critical thinking.

    I don’t believe John McCain would be allowed to grow much beyond Drill Baby Drill.

    Mike

    Comment by Mike | November 1, 2008

  19. If I look at energy policy from the last 8 years, I believe we an incredibly naive policy that believes in unlimited fossil fuel consumption and production. Almost divinely inspired consumption.

    I see the democratic policy to be an incredibly naive policy that looks at big-oil as the boogie man, and believes that conservation and alternative energy is the only route to salvation.

    From this perspective, I believe both parties are equal.

    What is different between them; or more specifically, between Barack Obama and John McCain (or President Bush), is that I believe the climate in the republican is such that thoughts dissident from the party orthodoxy is so difficult for their leadership to comprehend.

    I think Barack Obama in the context of the democratic party can support a variety of policies not be considered anti-party. He can support Coal, or oppose it, he can support nuclear, or oppose it.

    This gives him the opportunity to craft a multi-faceted policy, rather than one based on near-religious orthodoxy (like the republican party).

    So while Barack’s position might be naive in some aspects, his party gives him the opportunity (should he choose to use it) to develop something based on critical thinking.

    I don’t believe John McCain would be allowed to grow much beyond Drill Baby Drill.

    Mike

    Comment by Mike | November 1, 2008

  20. If I look at energy policy from the last 8 years, I believe we an incredibly naive policy that believes in unlimited fossil fuel consumption and production. Almost divinely inspired consumption.

    I see the democratic policy to be an incredibly naive policy that looks at big-oil as the boogie man, and believes that conservation and alternative energy is the only route to salvation.

    From this perspective, I believe both parties are equal.

    What is different between them; or more specifically, between Barack Obama and John McCain (or President Bush), is that I believe the climate in the republican is such that thoughts dissident from the party orthodoxy is so difficult for their leadership to comprehend.

    I think Barack Obama in the context of the democratic party can support a variety of policies not be considered anti-party. He can support Coal, or oppose it, he can support nuclear, or oppose it.

    This gives him the opportunity to craft a multi-faceted policy, rather than one based on near-religious orthodoxy (like the republican party).

    So while Barack’s position might be naive in some aspects, his party gives him the opportunity (should he choose to use it) to develop something based on critical thinking.

    I don’t believe John McCain would be allowed to grow much beyond Drill Baby Drill.

    Mike

    Comment by Mike | November 1, 2008

  21. If I look at energy policy from the last 8 years, I believe we an incredibly naive policy that believes in unlimited fossil fuel consumption and production. Almost divinely inspired consumption.

    I see the democratic policy to be an incredibly naive policy that looks at big-oil as the boogie man, and believes that conservation and alternative energy is the only route to salvation.

    From this perspective, I believe both parties are equal.

    What is different between them; or more specifically, between Barack Obama and John McCain (or President Bush), is that I believe the climate in the republican is such that thoughts dissident from the party orthodoxy is so difficult for their leadership to comprehend.

    I think Barack Obama in the context of the democratic party can support a variety of policies not be considered anti-party. He can support Coal, or oppose it, he can support nuclear, or oppose it.

    This gives him the opportunity to craft a multi-faceted policy, rather than one based on near-religious orthodoxy (like the republican party).

    So while Barack’s position might be naive in some aspects, his party gives him the opportunity (should he choose to use it) to develop something based on critical thinking.

    I don’t believe John McCain would be allowed to grow much beyond Drill Baby Drill.

    Mike

    Comment by Mike | November 1, 2008

  22. If I look at energy policy from the last 8 years, I believe we an incredibly naive policy that believes in unlimited fossil fuel consumption and production. Almost divinely inspired consumption.

    I see the democratic policy to be an incredibly naive policy that looks at big-oil as the boogie man, and believes that conservation and alternative energy is the only route to salvation.

    From this perspective, I believe both parties are equal.

    What is different between them; or more specifically, between Barack Obama and John McCain (or President Bush), is that I believe the climate in the republican is such that thoughts dissident from the party orthodoxy is so difficult for their leadership to comprehend.

    I think Barack Obama in the context of the democratic party can support a variety of policies not be considered anti-party. He can support Coal, or oppose it, he can support nuclear, or oppose it.

    This gives him the opportunity to craft a multi-faceted policy, rather than one based on near-religious orthodoxy (like the republican party).

    So while Barack’s position might be naive in some aspects, his party gives him the opportunity (should he choose to use it) to develop something based on critical thinking.

    I don’t believe John McCain would be allowed to grow much beyond Drill Baby Drill.

    Mike

    Comment by Mike | November 1, 2008

  23. If I look at energy policy from the last 8 years, I believe we an incredibly naive policy that believes in unlimited fossil fuel consumption and production. Almost divinely inspired consumption.

    I see the democratic policy to be an incredibly naive policy that looks at big-oil as the boogie man, and believes that conservation and alternative energy is the only route to salvation.

    From this perspective, I believe both parties are equal.

    What is different between them; or more specifically, between Barack Obama and John McCain (or President Bush), is that I believe the climate in the republican is such that thoughts dissident from the party orthodoxy is so difficult for their leadership to comprehend.

    I think Barack Obama in the context of the democratic party can support a variety of policies not be considered anti-party. He can support Coal, or oppose it, he can support nuclear, or oppose it.

    This gives him the opportunity to craft a multi-faceted policy, rather than one based on near-religious orthodoxy (like the republican party).

    So while Barack’s position might be naive in some aspects, his party gives him the opportunity (should he choose to use it) to develop something based on critical thinking.

    I don’t believe John McCain would be allowed to grow much beyond Drill Baby Drill.

    Mike

    Comment by Mike | November 1, 2008

  24. If I look at energy policy from the last 8 years, I believe we an incredibly naive policy that believes in unlimited fossil fuel consumption and production. Almost divinely inspired consumption.I see the democratic policy to be an incredibly naive policy that looks at big-oil as the boogie man, and believes that conservation and alternative energy is the only route to salvation.From this perspective, I believe both parties are equal.What is different between them; or more specifically, between Barack Obama and John McCain (or President Bush), is that I believe the climate in the republican is such that thoughts dissident from the party orthodoxy is so difficult for their leadership to comprehend.I think Barack Obama in the context of the democratic party can support a variety of policies not be considered anti-party. He can support Coal, or oppose it, he can support nuclear, or oppose it.This gives him the opportunity to craft a multi-faceted policy, rather than one based on near-religious orthodoxy (like the republican party). So while Barack’s position might be naive in some aspects, his party gives him the opportunity (should he choose to use it) to develop something based on critical thinking.I don’t believe John McCain would be allowed to grow much beyond Drill Baby Drill.Mike

    Comment by Mike | November 1, 2008

  25. The two-party dynamic seems to drive politics to not just extreme positions (universally acknowledged) but stupid ones.

    I’ve long since given up on one party or the other being right, and just hope that the pendulum swing between the two will pass through the middle and the reasonable from time to time.

    Broadly, I’d say the current administration was overly enamored of extraction (though oil and nat gas are less worrisome than coal, tar sands, or shale). They first cut and then restored a bit on renewables. Dems might reverse the emphasis.

    It’s too bad that both parties cater to ethanol, but that seems the third rail in energy policy these days.

    Ah well, vote Obama and then de-register to independent. Everybody should be independent. It’s the only path out of the 2 party catch 22.

    (Apparently some states are getting high percentages of independents, as the younger generation refuses both parties.)

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  26. The two-party dynamic seems to drive politics to not just extreme positions (universally acknowledged) but stupid ones.

    I’ve long since given up on one party or the other being right, and just hope that the pendulum swing between the two will pass through the middle and the reasonable from time to time.

    Broadly, I’d say the current administration was overly enamored of extraction (though oil and nat gas are less worrisome than coal, tar sands, or shale). They first cut and then restored a bit on renewables. Dems might reverse the emphasis.

    It’s too bad that both parties cater to ethanol, but that seems the third rail in energy policy these days.

    Ah well, vote Obama and then de-register to independent. Everybody should be independent. It’s the only path out of the 2 party catch 22.

    (Apparently some states are getting high percentages of independents, as the younger generation refuses both parties.)

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  27. The two-party dynamic seems to drive politics to not just extreme positions (universally acknowledged) but stupid ones.

    I’ve long since given up on one party or the other being right, and just hope that the pendulum swing between the two will pass through the middle and the reasonable from time to time.

    Broadly, I’d say the current administration was overly enamored of extraction (though oil and nat gas are less worrisome than coal, tar sands, or shale). They first cut and then restored a bit on renewables. Dems might reverse the emphasis.

    It’s too bad that both parties cater to ethanol, but that seems the third rail in energy policy these days.

    Ah well, vote Obama and then de-register to independent. Everybody should be independent. It’s the only path out of the 2 party catch 22.

    (Apparently some states are getting high percentages of independents, as the younger generation refuses both parties.)

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  28. The two-party dynamic seems to drive politics to not just extreme positions (universally acknowledged) but stupid ones.

    I’ve long since given up on one party or the other being right, and just hope that the pendulum swing between the two will pass through the middle and the reasonable from time to time.

    Broadly, I’d say the current administration was overly enamored of extraction (though oil and nat gas are less worrisome than coal, tar sands, or shale). They first cut and then restored a bit on renewables. Dems might reverse the emphasis.

    It’s too bad that both parties cater to ethanol, but that seems the third rail in energy policy these days.

    Ah well, vote Obama and then de-register to independent. Everybody should be independent. It’s the only path out of the 2 party catch 22.

    (Apparently some states are getting high percentages of independents, as the younger generation refuses both parties.)

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  29. The two-party dynamic seems to drive politics to not just extreme positions (universally acknowledged) but stupid ones.

    I’ve long since given up on one party or the other being right, and just hope that the pendulum swing between the two will pass through the middle and the reasonable from time to time.

    Broadly, I’d say the current administration was overly enamored of extraction (though oil and nat gas are less worrisome than coal, tar sands, or shale). They first cut and then restored a bit on renewables. Dems might reverse the emphasis.

    It’s too bad that both parties cater to ethanol, but that seems the third rail in energy policy these days.

    Ah well, vote Obama and then de-register to independent. Everybody should be independent. It’s the only path out of the 2 party catch 22.

    (Apparently some states are getting high percentages of independents, as the younger generation refuses both parties.)

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  30. The two-party dynamic seems to drive politics to not just extreme positions (universally acknowledged) but stupid ones.

    I’ve long since given up on one party or the other being right, and just hope that the pendulum swing between the two will pass through the middle and the reasonable from time to time.

    Broadly, I’d say the current administration was overly enamored of extraction (though oil and nat gas are less worrisome than coal, tar sands, or shale). They first cut and then restored a bit on renewables. Dems might reverse the emphasis.

    It’s too bad that both parties cater to ethanol, but that seems the third rail in energy policy these days.

    Ah well, vote Obama and then de-register to independent. Everybody should be independent. It’s the only path out of the 2 party catch 22.

    (Apparently some states are getting high percentages of independents, as the younger generation refuses both parties.)

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  31. The two-party dynamic seems to drive politics to not just extreme positions (universally acknowledged) but stupid ones.

    I’ve long since given up on one party or the other being right, and just hope that the pendulum swing between the two will pass through the middle and the reasonable from time to time.

    Broadly, I’d say the current administration was overly enamored of extraction (though oil and nat gas are less worrisome than coal, tar sands, or shale). They first cut and then restored a bit on renewables. Dems might reverse the emphasis.

    It’s too bad that both parties cater to ethanol, but that seems the third rail in energy policy these days.

    Ah well, vote Obama and then de-register to independent. Everybody should be independent. It’s the only path out of the 2 party catch 22.

    (Apparently some states are getting high percentages of independents, as the younger generation refuses both parties.)

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  32. The two-party dynamic seems to drive politics to not just extreme positions (universally acknowledged) but stupid ones.I’ve long since given up on one party or the other being right, and just hope that the pendulum swing between the two will pass through the middle and the reasonable from time to time.Broadly, I’d say the current administration was overly enamored of extraction (though oil and nat gas are less worrisome than coal, tar sands, or shale). They first cut and then restored a bit on renewables. Dems might reverse the emphasis.It’s too bad that both parties cater to ethanol, but that seems the third rail in energy policy these days.Ah well, vote Obama and then de-register to independent. Everybody should be independent. It’s the only path out of the 2 party catch 22.(Apparently some states are getting high percentages of independents, as the younger generation refuses both parties.)- odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  33. I believe we an incredibly naive policy that believes in unlimited fossil fuel consumption and production.

    Point definitely taken, and I almost put that in the essay. Any Republican that believes we can drill our way to independence is just as naive as someone who thinks we can just use alternative energy and get off of oil.

    I think it’s the “bite the hand that feeds them” aspect from the Democrats that I find so naive. Countries that are much more liberal than the U.S. don’t seem to suffer from this affliction.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | November 1, 2008

  34. I believe we an incredibly naive policy that believes in unlimited fossil fuel consumption and production.

    Point definitely taken, and I almost put that in the essay. Any Republican that believes we can drill our way to independence is just as naive as someone who thinks we can just use alternative energy and get off of oil.

    I think it’s the “bite the hand that feeds them” aspect from the Democrats that I find so naive. Countries that are much more liberal than the U.S. don’t seem to suffer from this affliction.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | November 1, 2008

  35. I believe we an incredibly naive policy that believes in unlimited fossil fuel consumption and production.

    Point definitely taken, and I almost put that in the essay. Any Republican that believes we can drill our way to independence is just as naive as someone who thinks we can just use alternative energy and get off of oil.

    I think it’s the “bite the hand that feeds them” aspect from the Democrats that I find so naive. Countries that are much more liberal than the U.S. don’t seem to suffer from this affliction.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | November 1, 2008

  36. I believe we an incredibly naive policy that believes in unlimited fossil fuel consumption and production.

    Point definitely taken, and I almost put that in the essay. Any Republican that believes we can drill our way to independence is just as naive as someone who thinks we can just use alternative energy and get off of oil.

    I think it’s the “bite the hand that feeds them” aspect from the Democrats that I find so naive. Countries that are much more liberal than the U.S. don’t seem to suffer from this affliction.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | November 1, 2008

  37. I believe we an incredibly naive policy that believes in unlimited fossil fuel consumption and production.

    Point definitely taken, and I almost put that in the essay. Any Republican that believes we can drill our way to independence is just as naive as someone who thinks we can just use alternative energy and get off of oil.

    I think it’s the “bite the hand that feeds them” aspect from the Democrats that I find so naive. Countries that are much more liberal than the U.S. don’t seem to suffer from this affliction.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | November 1, 2008

  38. I believe we an incredibly naive policy that believes in unlimited fossil fuel consumption and production.

    Point definitely taken, and I almost put that in the essay. Any Republican that believes we can drill our way to independence is just as naive as someone who thinks we can just use alternative energy and get off of oil.

    I think it’s the “bite the hand that feeds them” aspect from the Democrats that I find so naive. Countries that are much more liberal than the U.S. don’t seem to suffer from this affliction.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | November 1, 2008

  39. I believe we an incredibly naive policy that believes in unlimited fossil fuel consumption and production.

    Point definitely taken, and I almost put that in the essay. Any Republican that believes we can drill our way to independence is just as naive as someone who thinks we can just use alternative energy and get off of oil.

    I think it’s the “bite the hand that feeds them” aspect from the Democrats that I find so naive. Countries that are much more liberal than the U.S. don’t seem to suffer from this affliction.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | November 1, 2008

  40. I believe we an incredibly naive policy that believes in unlimited fossil fuel consumption and production.Point definitely taken, and I almost put that in the essay. Any Republican that believes we can drill our way to independence is just as naive as someone who thinks we can just use alternative energy and get off of oil. I think it’s the “bite the hand that feeds them” aspect from the Democrats that I find so naive. Countries that are much more liberal than the U.S. don’t seem to suffer from this affliction.RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | November 1, 2008

  41. Benny

    Why do you find it necessary to plop a long screed on bush, palin, iraq, and the republicans on every comment thread, no matter what the topic?

    You make some good point on the energy business but your bush obsession distracts from your good points.

    TJIT

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  42. Benny

    Why do you find it necessary to plop a long screed on bush, palin, iraq, and the republicans on every comment thread, no matter what the topic?

    You make some good point on the energy business but your bush obsession distracts from your good points.

    TJIT

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  43. Benny

    Why do you find it necessary to plop a long screed on bush, palin, iraq, and the republicans on every comment thread, no matter what the topic?

    You make some good point on the energy business but your bush obsession distracts from your good points.

    TJIT

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  44. Benny

    Why do you find it necessary to plop a long screed on bush, palin, iraq, and the republicans on every comment thread, no matter what the topic?

    You make some good point on the energy business but your bush obsession distracts from your good points.

    TJIT

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  45. Benny

    Why do you find it necessary to plop a long screed on bush, palin, iraq, and the republicans on every comment thread, no matter what the topic?

    You make some good point on the energy business but your bush obsession distracts from your good points.

    TJIT

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  46. Benny

    Why do you find it necessary to plop a long screed on bush, palin, iraq, and the republicans on every comment thread, no matter what the topic?

    You make some good point on the energy business but your bush obsession distracts from your good points.

    TJIT

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  47. Benny

    Why do you find it necessary to plop a long screed on bush, palin, iraq, and the republicans on every comment thread, no matter what the topic?

    You make some good point on the energy business but your bush obsession distracts from your good points.

    TJIT

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  48. Benny Why do you find it necessary to plop a long screed on bush, palin, iraq, and the republicans on every comment thread, no matter what the topic?You make some good point on the energy business but your bush obsession distracts from your good points. TJIT

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  49. TJIT speaking to Benny:

    “Why do you find it necessary to plop a long screed on bush, palin, iraq, and the republicans on every comment thread, no matter what the topic?”

    I’d admit to skimming past anything too screedish, but there’s no doubt that “bush, palin, iraq” dynamic puts us in a very particular spot, energy policy wise.

    It’s actually so painful to see “drill, baby, drill” overlapping “god’s war” for an oil rich nation … that I try to put it out of my head.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  50. TJIT speaking to Benny:

    “Why do you find it necessary to plop a long screed on bush, palin, iraq, and the republicans on every comment thread, no matter what the topic?”

    I’d admit to skimming past anything too screedish, but there’s no doubt that “bush, palin, iraq” dynamic puts us in a very particular spot, energy policy wise.

    It’s actually so painful to see “drill, baby, drill” overlapping “god’s war” for an oil rich nation … that I try to put it out of my head.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  51. TJIT speaking to Benny:

    “Why do you find it necessary to plop a long screed on bush, palin, iraq, and the republicans on every comment thread, no matter what the topic?”

    I’d admit to skimming past anything too screedish, but there’s no doubt that “bush, palin, iraq” dynamic puts us in a very particular spot, energy policy wise.

    It’s actually so painful to see “drill, baby, drill” overlapping “god’s war” for an oil rich nation … that I try to put it out of my head.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  52. TJIT speaking to Benny:

    “Why do you find it necessary to plop a long screed on bush, palin, iraq, and the republicans on every comment thread, no matter what the topic?”

    I’d admit to skimming past anything too screedish, but there’s no doubt that “bush, palin, iraq” dynamic puts us in a very particular spot, energy policy wise.

    It’s actually so painful to see “drill, baby, drill” overlapping “god’s war” for an oil rich nation … that I try to put it out of my head.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  53. TJIT speaking to Benny:

    “Why do you find it necessary to plop a long screed on bush, palin, iraq, and the republicans on every comment thread, no matter what the topic?”

    I’d admit to skimming past anything too screedish, but there’s no doubt that “bush, palin, iraq” dynamic puts us in a very particular spot, energy policy wise.

    It’s actually so painful to see “drill, baby, drill” overlapping “god’s war” for an oil rich nation … that I try to put it out of my head.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  54. TJIT speaking to Benny:

    “Why do you find it necessary to plop a long screed on bush, palin, iraq, and the republicans on every comment thread, no matter what the topic?”

    I’d admit to skimming past anything too screedish, but there’s no doubt that “bush, palin, iraq” dynamic puts us in a very particular spot, energy policy wise.

    It’s actually so painful to see “drill, baby, drill” overlapping “god’s war” for an oil rich nation … that I try to put it out of my head.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  55. TJIT speaking to Benny:

    “Why do you find it necessary to plop a long screed on bush, palin, iraq, and the republicans on every comment thread, no matter what the topic?”

    I’d admit to skimming past anything too screedish, but there’s no doubt that “bush, palin, iraq” dynamic puts us in a very particular spot, energy policy wise.

    It’s actually so painful to see “drill, baby, drill” overlapping “god’s war” for an oil rich nation … that I try to put it out of my head.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  56. TJIT speaking to Benny:”Why do you find it necessary to plop a long screed on bush, palin, iraq, and the republicans on every comment thread, no matter what the topic?”I’d admit to skimming past anything too screedish, but there’s no doubt that “bush, palin, iraq” dynamic puts us in a very particular spot, energy policy wise.It’s actually so painful to see “drill, baby, drill” overlapping “god’s war” for an oil rich nation … that I try to put it out of my head.- odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  57. @TJIT

    ROTFLMAO !!

    I’ve been avoiding Benny’s posts since he showed up on The Oil Drum months ago !!!!!!!!!!!!!

    There’s no doubt in my mind that his resultant ban at TOD was in part to the behavior you have identified.

    RR’s site is one of the best IMVHO on energy issues. I continue to reevaluate visiting comments here though, due to the continual screeds.

    As a result, it’s nice to see your remark. Takes the edge off the issue for me. Thanks.

    /sarcasm
    Meanwhile I will continue to avoid his posts with a renewed vigor. /sarcasm

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  58. @TJIT

    ROTFLMAO !!

    I’ve been avoiding Benny’s posts since he showed up on The Oil Drum months ago !!!!!!!!!!!!!

    There’s no doubt in my mind that his resultant ban at TOD was in part to the behavior you have identified.

    RR’s site is one of the best IMVHO on energy issues. I continue to reevaluate visiting comments here though, due to the continual screeds.

    As a result, it’s nice to see your remark. Takes the edge off the issue for me. Thanks.

    /sarcasm
    Meanwhile I will continue to avoid his posts with a renewed vigor. /sarcasm

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  59. @TJIT

    ROTFLMAO !!

    I’ve been avoiding Benny’s posts since he showed up on The Oil Drum months ago !!!!!!!!!!!!!

    There’s no doubt in my mind that his resultant ban at TOD was in part to the behavior you have identified.

    RR’s site is one of the best IMVHO on energy issues. I continue to reevaluate visiting comments here though, due to the continual screeds.

    As a result, it’s nice to see your remark. Takes the edge off the issue for me. Thanks.

    /sarcasm
    Meanwhile I will continue to avoid his posts with a renewed vigor. /sarcasm

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  60. @TJIT

    ROTFLMAO !!

    I’ve been avoiding Benny’s posts since he showed up on The Oil Drum months ago !!!!!!!!!!!!!

    There’s no doubt in my mind that his resultant ban at TOD was in part to the behavior you have identified.

    RR’s site is one of the best IMVHO on energy issues. I continue to reevaluate visiting comments here though, due to the continual screeds.

    As a result, it’s nice to see your remark. Takes the edge off the issue for me. Thanks.

    /sarcasm
    Meanwhile I will continue to avoid his posts with a renewed vigor. /sarcasm

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  61. @TJIT

    ROTFLMAO !!

    I’ve been avoiding Benny’s posts since he showed up on The Oil Drum months ago !!!!!!!!!!!!!

    There’s no doubt in my mind that his resultant ban at TOD was in part to the behavior you have identified.

    RR’s site is one of the best IMVHO on energy issues. I continue to reevaluate visiting comments here though, due to the continual screeds.

    As a result, it’s nice to see your remark. Takes the edge off the issue for me. Thanks.

    /sarcasm
    Meanwhile I will continue to avoid his posts with a renewed vigor. /sarcasm

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  62. @TJIT

    ROTFLMAO !!

    I’ve been avoiding Benny’s posts since he showed up on The Oil Drum months ago !!!!!!!!!!!!!

    There’s no doubt in my mind that his resultant ban at TOD was in part to the behavior you have identified.

    RR’s site is one of the best IMVHO on energy issues. I continue to reevaluate visiting comments here though, due to the continual screeds.

    As a result, it’s nice to see your remark. Takes the edge off the issue for me. Thanks.

    /sarcasm
    Meanwhile I will continue to avoid his posts with a renewed vigor. /sarcasm

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  63. @TJIT

    ROTFLMAO !!

    I’ve been avoiding Benny’s posts since he showed up on The Oil Drum months ago !!!!!!!!!!!!!

    There’s no doubt in my mind that his resultant ban at TOD was in part to the behavior you have identified.

    RR’s site is one of the best IMVHO on energy issues. I continue to reevaluate visiting comments here though, due to the continual screeds.

    As a result, it’s nice to see your remark. Takes the edge off the issue for me. Thanks.

    /sarcasm
    Meanwhile I will continue to avoid his posts with a renewed vigor. /sarcasm

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  64. @TJITROTFLMAO !!I’ve been avoiding Benny’s posts since he showed up on The Oil Drum months ago !!!!!!!!!!!!!There’s no doubt in my mind that his resultant ban at TOD was in part to the behavior you have identified.RR’s site is one of the best IMVHO on energy issues. I continue to reevaluate visiting comments here though, due to the continual screeds.As a result, it’s nice to see your remark. Takes the edge off the issue for me. Thanks./sarcasmMeanwhile I will continue to avoid his posts with a renewed vigor. /sarcasmRBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  65. There is no evidence at this blog that anyone actually knows what US energy policy is. Has anyone besides me actually read the National Energy Policy, May 2001?

    This policy is very comprehensive.
    The cool thing about energy is that results can be measured.

    So what is the record of the Bush Administration:
    Anaerobic digestion of farm manure: exponential growth

    – Wind generation: exponential growth
    – Ethanol: exponential growth
    – Biodiesel: exponential growth
    – Geothermal: exponential growth
    – Nuke plants being closed: zero
    – Nuke plants being extended 20 years: 100%

    – Nuke plants being licensed: 30+
    – Nuke plants being sold to China: four

    – Biomass electricity generation: growing instead of declining

    – FERC regulations with teeth: passed

    – Rolling blackouts due to lack of capacity/fuel: zero
    – Operating drilling rigs: 1500 up from 500
    – The price of natural gas for home heating: the same as 2000

    Now tell me what the next president is going to do better?

    Comment by Kit P | November 1, 2008

  66. There is no evidence at this blog that anyone actually knows what US energy policy is. Has anyone besides me actually read the National Energy Policy, May 2001?

    This policy is very comprehensive.
    The cool thing about energy is that results can be measured.

    So what is the record of the Bush Administration:
    Anaerobic digestion of farm manure: exponential growth

    – Wind generation: exponential growth
    – Ethanol: exponential growth
    – Biodiesel: exponential growth
    – Geothermal: exponential growth
    – Nuke plants being closed: zero
    – Nuke plants being extended 20 years: 100%

    – Nuke plants being licensed: 30+
    – Nuke plants being sold to China: four

    – Biomass electricity generation: growing instead of declining

    – FERC regulations with teeth: passed

    – Rolling blackouts due to lack of capacity/fuel: zero
    – Operating drilling rigs: 1500 up from 500
    – The price of natural gas for home heating: the same as 2000

    Now tell me what the next president is going to do better?

    Comment by Kit P | November 1, 2008

  67. There is no evidence at this blog that anyone actually knows what US energy policy is. Has anyone besides me actually read the National Energy Policy, May 2001?

    This policy is very comprehensive.
    The cool thing about energy is that results can be measured.

    So what is the record of the Bush Administration:
    Anaerobic digestion of farm manure: exponential growth

    – Wind generation: exponential growth
    – Ethanol: exponential growth
    – Biodiesel: exponential growth
    – Geothermal: exponential growth
    – Nuke plants being closed: zero
    – Nuke plants being extended 20 years: 100%

    – Nuke plants being licensed: 30+
    – Nuke plants being sold to China: four

    – Biomass electricity generation: growing instead of declining

    – FERC regulations with teeth: passed

    – Rolling blackouts due to lack of capacity/fuel: zero
    – Operating drilling rigs: 1500 up from 500
    – The price of natural gas for home heating: the same as 2000

    Now tell me what the next president is going to do better?

    Comment by Kit P | November 1, 2008

  68. There is no evidence at this blog that anyone actually knows what US energy policy is. Has anyone besides me actually read the National Energy Policy, May 2001?

    This policy is very comprehensive.
    The cool thing about energy is that results can be measured.

    So what is the record of the Bush Administration:
    Anaerobic digestion of farm manure: exponential growth

    – Wind generation: exponential growth
    – Ethanol: exponential growth
    – Biodiesel: exponential growth
    – Geothermal: exponential growth
    – Nuke plants being closed: zero
    – Nuke plants being extended 20 years: 100%

    – Nuke plants being licensed: 30+
    – Nuke plants being sold to China: four

    – Biomass electricity generation: growing instead of declining

    – FERC regulations with teeth: passed

    – Rolling blackouts due to lack of capacity/fuel: zero
    – Operating drilling rigs: 1500 up from 500
    – The price of natural gas for home heating: the same as 2000

    Now tell me what the next president is going to do better?

    Comment by Kit P | November 1, 2008

  69. There is no evidence at this blog that anyone actually knows what US energy policy is. Has anyone besides me actually read the National Energy Policy, May 2001?

    This policy is very comprehensive.
    The cool thing about energy is that results can be measured.

    So what is the record of the Bush Administration:
    Anaerobic digestion of farm manure: exponential growth

    – Wind generation: exponential growth
    – Ethanol: exponential growth
    – Biodiesel: exponential growth
    – Geothermal: exponential growth
    – Nuke plants being closed: zero
    – Nuke plants being extended 20 years: 100%

    – Nuke plants being licensed: 30+
    – Nuke plants being sold to China: four

    – Biomass electricity generation: growing instead of declining

    – FERC regulations with teeth: passed

    – Rolling blackouts due to lack of capacity/fuel: zero
    – Operating drilling rigs: 1500 up from 500
    – The price of natural gas for home heating: the same as 2000

    Now tell me what the next president is going to do better?

    Comment by Kit P | November 1, 2008

  70. There is no evidence at this blog that anyone actually knows what US energy policy is. Has anyone besides me actually read the National Energy Policy, May 2001?

    This policy is very comprehensive.
    The cool thing about energy is that results can be measured.

    So what is the record of the Bush Administration:
    Anaerobic digestion of farm manure: exponential growth

    – Wind generation: exponential growth
    – Ethanol: exponential growth
    – Biodiesel: exponential growth
    – Geothermal: exponential growth
    – Nuke plants being closed: zero
    – Nuke plants being extended 20 years: 100%

    – Nuke plants being licensed: 30+
    – Nuke plants being sold to China: four

    – Biomass electricity generation: growing instead of declining

    – FERC regulations with teeth: passed

    – Rolling blackouts due to lack of capacity/fuel: zero
    – Operating drilling rigs: 1500 up from 500
    – The price of natural gas for home heating: the same as 2000

    Now tell me what the next president is going to do better?

    Comment by Kit P | November 1, 2008

  71. There is no evidence at this blog that anyone actually knows what US energy policy is. Has anyone besides me actually read the National Energy Policy, May 2001?

    This policy is very comprehensive.
    The cool thing about energy is that results can be measured.

    So what is the record of the Bush Administration:
    Anaerobic digestion of farm manure: exponential growth

    – Wind generation: exponential growth
    – Ethanol: exponential growth
    – Biodiesel: exponential growth
    – Geothermal: exponential growth
    – Nuke plants being closed: zero
    – Nuke plants being extended 20 years: 100%

    – Nuke plants being licensed: 30+
    – Nuke plants being sold to China: four

    – Biomass electricity generation: growing instead of declining

    – FERC regulations with teeth: passed

    – Rolling blackouts due to lack of capacity/fuel: zero
    – Operating drilling rigs: 1500 up from 500
    – The price of natural gas for home heating: the same as 2000

    Now tell me what the next president is going to do better?

    Comment by Kit P | November 1, 2008

  72. There is no evidence at this blog that anyone actually knows what US energy policy is. Has anyone besides me actually read the National Energy Policy, May 2001? This policy is very comprehensive. The cool thing about energy is that results can be measured.So what is the record of the Bush Administration:Anaerobic digestion of farm manure: exponential growth- Wind generation: exponential growth- Ethanol: exponential growth- Biodiesel: exponential growth- Geothermal: exponential growth- Nuke plants being closed: zero- Nuke plants being extended 20 years: 100%- Nuke plants being licensed: 30+- Nuke plants being sold to China: four- Biomass electricity generation: growing instead of declining- FERC regulations with teeth: passed- Rolling blackouts due to lack of capacity/fuel: zero- Operating drilling rigs: 1500 up from 500- The price of natural gas for home heating: the same as 2000Now tell me what the next president is going to do better?

    Comment by Kit P | November 1, 2008

  73. @Kit P

    I live in the only state in the US with public electricity. How about that for a goal of every state ? Don’t dance around this one – this is a federal republic, you know !

    I have been an electronics tech in the past, and will be a HVAC tech in the very near future. Yup, it’s cool to be able measure results !

    So why did you not provide (numerical) measurements in your record summation ???

    Cause you’re a hack, maybe ? Hope I’m wrong, real wrong !!!!

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  74. @Kit P

    I live in the only state in the US with public electricity. How about that for a goal of every state ? Don’t dance around this one – this is a federal republic, you know !

    I have been an electronics tech in the past, and will be a HVAC tech in the very near future. Yup, it’s cool to be able measure results !

    So why did you not provide (numerical) measurements in your record summation ???

    Cause you’re a hack, maybe ? Hope I’m wrong, real wrong !!!!

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  75. @Kit P

    I live in the only state in the US with public electricity. How about that for a goal of every state ? Don’t dance around this one – this is a federal republic, you know !

    I have been an electronics tech in the past, and will be a HVAC tech in the very near future. Yup, it’s cool to be able measure results !

    So why did you not provide (numerical) measurements in your record summation ???

    Cause you’re a hack, maybe ? Hope I’m wrong, real wrong !!!!

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  76. @Kit P

    I live in the only state in the US with public electricity. How about that for a goal of every state ? Don’t dance around this one – this is a federal republic, you know !

    I have been an electronics tech in the past, and will be a HVAC tech in the very near future. Yup, it’s cool to be able measure results !

    So why did you not provide (numerical) measurements in your record summation ???

    Cause you’re a hack, maybe ? Hope I’m wrong, real wrong !!!!

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  77. @Kit P

    I live in the only state in the US with public electricity. How about that for a goal of every state ? Don’t dance around this one – this is a federal republic, you know !

    I have been an electronics tech in the past, and will be a HVAC tech in the very near future. Yup, it’s cool to be able measure results !

    So why did you not provide (numerical) measurements in your record summation ???

    Cause you’re a hack, maybe ? Hope I’m wrong, real wrong !!!!

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  78. @Kit P

    I live in the only state in the US with public electricity. How about that for a goal of every state ? Don’t dance around this one – this is a federal republic, you know !

    I have been an electronics tech in the past, and will be a HVAC tech in the very near future. Yup, it’s cool to be able measure results !

    So why did you not provide (numerical) measurements in your record summation ???

    Cause you’re a hack, maybe ? Hope I’m wrong, real wrong !!!!

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  79. @Kit P

    I live in the only state in the US with public electricity. How about that for a goal of every state ? Don’t dance around this one – this is a federal republic, you know !

    I have been an electronics tech in the past, and will be a HVAC tech in the very near future. Yup, it’s cool to be able measure results !

    So why did you not provide (numerical) measurements in your record summation ???

    Cause you’re a hack, maybe ? Hope I’m wrong, real wrong !!!!

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  80. @Kit PI live in the only state in the US with public electricity. How about that for a goal of every state ? Don’t dance around this one – this is a federal republic, you know !I have been an electronics tech in the past, and will be a HVAC tech in the very near future. Yup, it’s cool to be able measure results !So why did you not provide (numerical) measurements in your record summation ??? Cause you’re a hack, maybe ? Hope I’m wrong, real wrong !!!!RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  81. In order to shift the mentality to conserve energy, and allow alternative energy sources to expand, does it make sense to follow the path of the UK, and tax the US consumer. The duty and VAT contribute above 70% of the cost of petrol in the UK, has it increased unemployment? What is the government doing with the extra revenue?

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  82. In order to shift the mentality to conserve energy, and allow alternative energy sources to expand, does it make sense to follow the path of the UK, and tax the US consumer. The duty and VAT contribute above 70% of the cost of petrol in the UK, has it increased unemployment? What is the government doing with the extra revenue?

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  83. In order to shift the mentality to conserve energy, and allow alternative energy sources to expand, does it make sense to follow the path of the UK, and tax the US consumer. The duty and VAT contribute above 70% of the cost of petrol in the UK, has it increased unemployment? What is the government doing with the extra revenue?

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  84. In order to shift the mentality to conserve energy, and allow alternative energy sources to expand, does it make sense to follow the path of the UK, and tax the US consumer. The duty and VAT contribute above 70% of the cost of petrol in the UK, has it increased unemployment? What is the government doing with the extra revenue?

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  85. In order to shift the mentality to conserve energy, and allow alternative energy sources to expand, does it make sense to follow the path of the UK, and tax the US consumer. The duty and VAT contribute above 70% of the cost of petrol in the UK, has it increased unemployment? What is the government doing with the extra revenue?

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  86. In order to shift the mentality to conserve energy, and allow alternative energy sources to expand, does it make sense to follow the path of the UK, and tax the US consumer. The duty and VAT contribute above 70% of the cost of petrol in the UK, has it increased unemployment? What is the government doing with the extra revenue?

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  87. In order to shift the mentality to conserve energy, and allow alternative energy sources to expand, does it make sense to follow the path of the UK, and tax the US consumer. The duty and VAT contribute above 70% of the cost of petrol in the UK, has it increased unemployment? What is the government doing with the extra revenue?

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  88. In order to shift the mentality to conserve energy, and allow alternative energy sources to expand, does it make sense to follow the path of the UK, and tax the US consumer. The duty and VAT contribute above 70% of the cost of petrol in the UK, has it increased unemployment? What is the government doing with the extra revenue?

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  89. @RBM
    Having worked for public power in different states, I would have to point out that many states have public power. This a local decision and I would think that would be a goal of the federal government.

    Public power varies from small rural COOPs to the very large like like Los Angles Department of Water and Power. It is a little know fact that LADWP was the largest profiteer in the 2000/2001 California energy crisis. S. David Freeman, LADWP stood on the California state house steps pointing at others but again the amount of electricity sold and the cost is something that can be measured.

    I have a great deal of respect for public power but I would not propose it as a goal.

    Hopefully that answers your first question. However, no summation was provided. That was a question. I will give an example of an answer. I would like the next president to get new oil rigs off the coast of California. The record of US oil industry at preventing spills is very good theses days. The major source of oil getting into the ocean is all the cars on California roads dripping oil. If California does not want to be part of the solution, then they should stop being part of the problems. Ration cards limiting each California family to 30 gallons of fuel.

    Ration card #1 would go to the governor, #2 the AG, #3 to Jay Leno.

    Comment by Kit P | November 1, 2008

  90. @RBM
    Having worked for public power in different states, I would have to point out that many states have public power. This a local decision and I would think that would be a goal of the federal government.

    Public power varies from small rural COOPs to the very large like like Los Angles Department of Water and Power. It is a little know fact that LADWP was the largest profiteer in the 2000/2001 California energy crisis. S. David Freeman, LADWP stood on the California state house steps pointing at others but again the amount of electricity sold and the cost is something that can be measured.

    I have a great deal of respect for public power but I would not propose it as a goal.

    Hopefully that answers your first question. However, no summation was provided. That was a question. I will give an example of an answer. I would like the next president to get new oil rigs off the coast of California. The record of US oil industry at preventing spills is very good theses days. The major source of oil getting into the ocean is all the cars on California roads dripping oil. If California does not want to be part of the solution, then they should stop being part of the problems. Ration cards limiting each California family to 30 gallons of fuel.

    Ration card #1 would go to the governor, #2 the AG, #3 to Jay Leno.

    Comment by Kit P | November 1, 2008

  91. @RBM
    Having worked for public power in different states, I would have to point out that many states have public power. This a local decision and I would think that would be a goal of the federal government.

    Public power varies from small rural COOPs to the very large like like Los Angles Department of Water and Power. It is a little know fact that LADWP was the largest profiteer in the 2000/2001 California energy crisis. S. David Freeman, LADWP stood on the California state house steps pointing at others but again the amount of electricity sold and the cost is something that can be measured.

    I have a great deal of respect for public power but I would not propose it as a goal.

    Hopefully that answers your first question. However, no summation was provided. That was a question. I will give an example of an answer. I would like the next president to get new oil rigs off the coast of California. The record of US oil industry at preventing spills is very good theses days. The major source of oil getting into the ocean is all the cars on California roads dripping oil. If California does not want to be part of the solution, then they should stop being part of the problems. Ration cards limiting each California family to 30 gallons of fuel.

    Ration card #1 would go to the governor, #2 the AG, #3 to Jay Leno.

    Comment by Kit P | November 1, 2008

  92. @RBM
    Having worked for public power in different states, I would have to point out that many states have public power. This a local decision and I would think that would be a goal of the federal government.

    Public power varies from small rural COOPs to the very large like like Los Angles Department of Water and Power. It is a little know fact that LADWP was the largest profiteer in the 2000/2001 California energy crisis. S. David Freeman, LADWP stood on the California state house steps pointing at others but again the amount of electricity sold and the cost is something that can be measured.

    I have a great deal of respect for public power but I would not propose it as a goal.

    Hopefully that answers your first question. However, no summation was provided. That was a question. I will give an example of an answer. I would like the next president to get new oil rigs off the coast of California. The record of US oil industry at preventing spills is very good theses days. The major source of oil getting into the ocean is all the cars on California roads dripping oil. If California does not want to be part of the solution, then they should stop being part of the problems. Ration cards limiting each California family to 30 gallons of fuel.

    Ration card #1 would go to the governor, #2 the AG, #3 to Jay Leno.

    Comment by Kit P | November 1, 2008

  93. @RBM
    Having worked for public power in different states, I would have to point out that many states have public power. This a local decision and I would think that would be a goal of the federal government.

    Public power varies from small rural COOPs to the very large like like Los Angles Department of Water and Power. It is a little know fact that LADWP was the largest profiteer in the 2000/2001 California energy crisis. S. David Freeman, LADWP stood on the California state house steps pointing at others but again the amount of electricity sold and the cost is something that can be measured.

    I have a great deal of respect for public power but I would not propose it as a goal.

    Hopefully that answers your first question. However, no summation was provided. That was a question. I will give an example of an answer. I would like the next president to get new oil rigs off the coast of California. The record of US oil industry at preventing spills is very good theses days. The major source of oil getting into the ocean is all the cars on California roads dripping oil. If California does not want to be part of the solution, then they should stop being part of the problems. Ration cards limiting each California family to 30 gallons of fuel.

    Ration card #1 would go to the governor, #2 the AG, #3 to Jay Leno.

    Comment by Kit P | November 1, 2008

  94. @RBM
    Having worked for public power in different states, I would have to point out that many states have public power. This a local decision and I would think that would be a goal of the federal government.

    Public power varies from small rural COOPs to the very large like like Los Angles Department of Water and Power. It is a little know fact that LADWP was the largest profiteer in the 2000/2001 California energy crisis. S. David Freeman, LADWP stood on the California state house steps pointing at others but again the amount of electricity sold and the cost is something that can be measured.

    I have a great deal of respect for public power but I would not propose it as a goal.

    Hopefully that answers your first question. However, no summation was provided. That was a question. I will give an example of an answer. I would like the next president to get new oil rigs off the coast of California. The record of US oil industry at preventing spills is very good theses days. The major source of oil getting into the ocean is all the cars on California roads dripping oil. If California does not want to be part of the solution, then they should stop being part of the problems. Ration cards limiting each California family to 30 gallons of fuel.

    Ration card #1 would go to the governor, #2 the AG, #3 to Jay Leno.

    Comment by Kit P | November 1, 2008

  95. @RBM
    Having worked for public power in different states, I would have to point out that many states have public power. This a local decision and I would think that would be a goal of the federal government.

    Public power varies from small rural COOPs to the very large like like Los Angles Department of Water and Power. It is a little know fact that LADWP was the largest profiteer in the 2000/2001 California energy crisis. S. David Freeman, LADWP stood on the California state house steps pointing at others but again the amount of electricity sold and the cost is something that can be measured.

    I have a great deal of respect for public power but I would not propose it as a goal.

    Hopefully that answers your first question. However, no summation was provided. That was a question. I will give an example of an answer. I would like the next president to get new oil rigs off the coast of California. The record of US oil industry at preventing spills is very good theses days. The major source of oil getting into the ocean is all the cars on California roads dripping oil. If California does not want to be part of the solution, then they should stop being part of the problems. Ration cards limiting each California family to 30 gallons of fuel.

    Ration card #1 would go to the governor, #2 the AG, #3 to Jay Leno.

    Comment by Kit P | November 1, 2008

  96. @RBMHaving worked for public power in different states, I would have to point out that many states have public power. This a local decision and I would think that would be a goal of the federal government. Public power varies from small rural COOPs to the very large like like Los Angles Department of Water and Power. It is a little know fact that LADWP was the largest profiteer in the 2000/2001 California energy crisis. S. David Freeman, LADWP stood on the California state house steps pointing at others but again the amount of electricity sold and the cost is something that can be measured.I have a great deal of respect for public power but I would not propose it as a goal.Hopefully that answers your first question. However, no summation was provided. That was a question. I will give an example of an answer. I would like the next president to get new oil rigs off the coast of California. The record of US oil industry at preventing spills is very good theses days. The major source of oil getting into the ocean is all the cars on California roads dripping oil. If California does not want to be part of the solution, then they should stop being part of the problems. Ration cards limiting each California family to 30 gallons of fuel. Ration card #1 would go to the governor, #2 the AG, #3 to Jay Leno.

    Comment by Kit P | November 1, 2008

  97. I would hardly say that Democrats have a hostile view of oil companies. Some opportunistic Congressmen demonize oil companies when they find it politically beneficial. But I would ask you to point out some legislation that the Democratic party has pushed that you find objectionable.

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  98. I would hardly say that Democrats have a hostile view of oil companies. Some opportunistic Congressmen demonize oil companies when they find it politically beneficial. But I would ask you to point out some legislation that the Democratic party has pushed that you find objectionable.

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  99. I would hardly say that Democrats have a hostile view of oil companies. Some opportunistic Congressmen demonize oil companies when they find it politically beneficial. But I would ask you to point out some legislation that the Democratic party has pushed that you find objectionable.

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  100. I would hardly say that Democrats have a hostile view of oil companies. Some opportunistic Congressmen demonize oil companies when they find it politically beneficial. But I would ask you to point out some legislation that the Democratic party has pushed that you find objectionable.

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  101. I would hardly say that Democrats have a hostile view of oil companies. Some opportunistic Congressmen demonize oil companies when they find it politically beneficial. But I would ask you to point out some legislation that the Democratic party has pushed that you find objectionable.

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  102. I would hardly say that Democrats have a hostile view of oil companies. Some opportunistic Congressmen demonize oil companies when they find it politically beneficial. But I would ask you to point out some legislation that the Democratic party has pushed that you find objectionable.

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  103. I would hardly say that Democrats have a hostile view of oil companies. Some opportunistic Congressmen demonize oil companies when they find it politically beneficial. But I would ask you to point out some legislation that the Democratic party has pushed that you find objectionable.

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  104. I would hardly say that Democrats have a hostile view of oil companies. Some opportunistic Congressmen demonize oil companies when they find it politically beneficial. But I would ask you to point out some legislation that the Democratic party has pushed that you find objectionable.

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  105. TJIT-
    Point taken, but there is an election coming up, and this is an energy blog. My post concerned partisanship, Palin’s free money for Alaskans taken from oil companies (an energy issue), and McCain’s bashing of “Big Oil” (a regular in his stump speeches), and the Dems lack of a coherent policy other wanting to tax Big Oil and Bush’s love of corn ethanol.
    I also mentioned ANWR and drilling of the coast of Florida. I would say most of my post on on-topic.
    I still do not know why I was banned from TOD, but it happened when I asked what is the source of funding behind TOD, and its cloaked-identitity editors. I also asked anybody at TOD to identify a single promising alternative energy technology that was not having money thrown at it. (and many not so promising technoogies, as RR points out). That point is that we have plenty of capital to invest in new technologies, so we are not doomed. That post got me kicked off TOD the second time. I would say TOD is not a forum but some sort of tool.
    A still a very vaild question, especially given the extremely speculative nature of the NYMEX, is who finances TOD? I would be a lot more concerned about who backs TOD (directly or indirectly), then if Benny posts some tired ideas.
    I have sent queries to TOD editors and cc’ed the CFTC. We will see if anything turns up. Maybe TOD is clean as a whistle.
    I was getting rapidly tired of the relentess doomsterism, and gonzo economics of the TOD anyway, and it is better to just post at R squared.
    Here, (most) readers actually enjoy each other’s posts, and regard different points of views as challenging and interesting. I hope my views and occasional attempts at wry humor lighten somone’s day, in whatever small way. I know I attempt to say something nice to every poster who has a opposite point of view from mine.
    And, sheesh, you can always skip my posts.

    Comment by benny "Still Peak demand" cole | November 1, 2008

  106. TJIT-
    Point taken, but there is an election coming up, and this is an energy blog. My post concerned partisanship, Palin’s free money for Alaskans taken from oil companies (an energy issue), and McCain’s bashing of “Big Oil” (a regular in his stump speeches), and the Dems lack of a coherent policy other wanting to tax Big Oil and Bush’s love of corn ethanol.
    I also mentioned ANWR and drilling of the coast of Florida. I would say most of my post on on-topic.
    I still do not know why I was banned from TOD, but it happened when I asked what is the source of funding behind TOD, and its cloaked-identitity editors. I also asked anybody at TOD to identify a single promising alternative energy technology that was not having money thrown at it. (and many not so promising technoogies, as RR points out). That point is that we have plenty of capital to invest in new technologies, so we are not doomed. That post got me kicked off TOD the second time. I would say TOD is not a forum but some sort of tool.
    A still a very vaild question, especially given the extremely speculative nature of the NYMEX, is who finances TOD? I would be a lot more concerned about who backs TOD (directly or indirectly), then if Benny posts some tired ideas.
    I have sent queries to TOD editors and cc’ed the CFTC. We will see if anything turns up. Maybe TOD is clean as a whistle.
    I was getting rapidly tired of the relentess doomsterism, and gonzo economics of the TOD anyway, and it is better to just post at R squared.
    Here, (most) readers actually enjoy each other’s posts, and regard different points of views as challenging and interesting. I hope my views and occasional attempts at wry humor lighten somone’s day, in whatever small way. I know I attempt to say something nice to every poster who has a opposite point of view from mine.
    And, sheesh, you can always skip my posts.

    Comment by benny "Still Peak demand" cole | November 1, 2008

  107. TJIT-
    Point taken, but there is an election coming up, and this is an energy blog. My post concerned partisanship, Palin’s free money for Alaskans taken from oil companies (an energy issue), and McCain’s bashing of “Big Oil” (a regular in his stump speeches), and the Dems lack of a coherent policy other wanting to tax Big Oil and Bush’s love of corn ethanol.
    I also mentioned ANWR and drilling of the coast of Florida. I would say most of my post on on-topic.
    I still do not know why I was banned from TOD, but it happened when I asked what is the source of funding behind TOD, and its cloaked-identitity editors. I also asked anybody at TOD to identify a single promising alternative energy technology that was not having money thrown at it. (and many not so promising technoogies, as RR points out). That point is that we have plenty of capital to invest in new technologies, so we are not doomed. That post got me kicked off TOD the second time. I would say TOD is not a forum but some sort of tool.
    A still a very vaild question, especially given the extremely speculative nature of the NYMEX, is who finances TOD? I would be a lot more concerned about who backs TOD (directly or indirectly), then if Benny posts some tired ideas.
    I have sent queries to TOD editors and cc’ed the CFTC. We will see if anything turns up. Maybe TOD is clean as a whistle.
    I was getting rapidly tired of the relentess doomsterism, and gonzo economics of the TOD anyway, and it is better to just post at R squared.
    Here, (most) readers actually enjoy each other’s posts, and regard different points of views as challenging and interesting. I hope my views and occasional attempts at wry humor lighten somone’s day, in whatever small way. I know I attempt to say something nice to every poster who has a opposite point of view from mine.
    And, sheesh, you can always skip my posts.

    Comment by benny "Still Peak demand" cole | November 1, 2008

  108. TJIT-
    Point taken, but there is an election coming up, and this is an energy blog. My post concerned partisanship, Palin’s free money for Alaskans taken from oil companies (an energy issue), and McCain’s bashing of “Big Oil” (a regular in his stump speeches), and the Dems lack of a coherent policy other wanting to tax Big Oil and Bush’s love of corn ethanol.
    I also mentioned ANWR and drilling of the coast of Florida. I would say most of my post on on-topic.
    I still do not know why I was banned from TOD, but it happened when I asked what is the source of funding behind TOD, and its cloaked-identitity editors. I also asked anybody at TOD to identify a single promising alternative energy technology that was not having money thrown at it. (and many not so promising technoogies, as RR points out). That point is that we have plenty of capital to invest in new technologies, so we are not doomed. That post got me kicked off TOD the second time. I would say TOD is not a forum but some sort of tool.
    A still a very vaild question, especially given the extremely speculative nature of the NYMEX, is who finances TOD? I would be a lot more concerned about who backs TOD (directly or indirectly), then if Benny posts some tired ideas.
    I have sent queries to TOD editors and cc’ed the CFTC. We will see if anything turns up. Maybe TOD is clean as a whistle.
    I was getting rapidly tired of the relentess doomsterism, and gonzo economics of the TOD anyway, and it is better to just post at R squared.
    Here, (most) readers actually enjoy each other’s posts, and regard different points of views as challenging and interesting. I hope my views and occasional attempts at wry humor lighten somone’s day, in whatever small way. I know I attempt to say something nice to every poster who has a opposite point of view from mine.
    And, sheesh, you can always skip my posts.

    Comment by benny "Still Peak demand" cole | November 1, 2008

  109. TJIT-
    Point taken, but there is an election coming up, and this is an energy blog. My post concerned partisanship, Palin’s free money for Alaskans taken from oil companies (an energy issue), and McCain’s bashing of “Big Oil” (a regular in his stump speeches), and the Dems lack of a coherent policy other wanting to tax Big Oil and Bush’s love of corn ethanol.
    I also mentioned ANWR and drilling of the coast of Florida. I would say most of my post on on-topic.
    I still do not know why I was banned from TOD, but it happened when I asked what is the source of funding behind TOD, and its cloaked-identitity editors. I also asked anybody at TOD to identify a single promising alternative energy technology that was not having money thrown at it. (and many not so promising technoogies, as RR points out). That point is that we have plenty of capital to invest in new technologies, so we are not doomed. That post got me kicked off TOD the second time. I would say TOD is not a forum but some sort of tool.
    A still a very vaild question, especially given the extremely speculative nature of the NYMEX, is who finances TOD? I would be a lot more concerned about who backs TOD (directly or indirectly), then if Benny posts some tired ideas.
    I have sent queries to TOD editors and cc’ed the CFTC. We will see if anything turns up. Maybe TOD is clean as a whistle.
    I was getting rapidly tired of the relentess doomsterism, and gonzo economics of the TOD anyway, and it is better to just post at R squared.
    Here, (most) readers actually enjoy each other’s posts, and regard different points of views as challenging and interesting. I hope my views and occasional attempts at wry humor lighten somone’s day, in whatever small way. I know I attempt to say something nice to every poster who has a opposite point of view from mine.
    And, sheesh, you can always skip my posts.

    Comment by benny "Still Peak demand" cole | November 1, 2008

  110. TJIT-
    Point taken, but there is an election coming up, and this is an energy blog. My post concerned partisanship, Palin’s free money for Alaskans taken from oil companies (an energy issue), and McCain’s bashing of “Big Oil” (a regular in his stump speeches), and the Dems lack of a coherent policy other wanting to tax Big Oil and Bush’s love of corn ethanol.
    I also mentioned ANWR and drilling of the coast of Florida. I would say most of my post on on-topic.
    I still do not know why I was banned from TOD, but it happened when I asked what is the source of funding behind TOD, and its cloaked-identitity editors. I also asked anybody at TOD to identify a single promising alternative energy technology that was not having money thrown at it. (and many not so promising technoogies, as RR points out). That point is that we have plenty of capital to invest in new technologies, so we are not doomed. That post got me kicked off TOD the second time. I would say TOD is not a forum but some sort of tool.
    A still a very vaild question, especially given the extremely speculative nature of the NYMEX, is who finances TOD? I would be a lot more concerned about who backs TOD (directly or indirectly), then if Benny posts some tired ideas.
    I have sent queries to TOD editors and cc’ed the CFTC. We will see if anything turns up. Maybe TOD is clean as a whistle.
    I was getting rapidly tired of the relentess doomsterism, and gonzo economics of the TOD anyway, and it is better to just post at R squared.
    Here, (most) readers actually enjoy each other’s posts, and regard different points of views as challenging and interesting. I hope my views and occasional attempts at wry humor lighten somone’s day, in whatever small way. I know I attempt to say something nice to every poster who has a opposite point of view from mine.
    And, sheesh, you can always skip my posts.

    Comment by benny "Still Peak demand" cole | November 1, 2008

  111. TJIT-
    Point taken, but there is an election coming up, and this is an energy blog. My post concerned partisanship, Palin’s free money for Alaskans taken from oil companies (an energy issue), and McCain’s bashing of “Big Oil” (a regular in his stump speeches), and the Dems lack of a coherent policy other wanting to tax Big Oil and Bush’s love of corn ethanol.
    I also mentioned ANWR and drilling of the coast of Florida. I would say most of my post on on-topic.
    I still do not know why I was banned from TOD, but it happened when I asked what is the source of funding behind TOD, and its cloaked-identitity editors. I also asked anybody at TOD to identify a single promising alternative energy technology that was not having money thrown at it. (and many not so promising technoogies, as RR points out). That point is that we have plenty of capital to invest in new technologies, so we are not doomed. That post got me kicked off TOD the second time. I would say TOD is not a forum but some sort of tool.
    A still a very vaild question, especially given the extremely speculative nature of the NYMEX, is who finances TOD? I would be a lot more concerned about who backs TOD (directly or indirectly), then if Benny posts some tired ideas.
    I have sent queries to TOD editors and cc’ed the CFTC. We will see if anything turns up. Maybe TOD is clean as a whistle.
    I was getting rapidly tired of the relentess doomsterism, and gonzo economics of the TOD anyway, and it is better to just post at R squared.
    Here, (most) readers actually enjoy each other’s posts, and regard different points of views as challenging and interesting. I hope my views and occasional attempts at wry humor lighten somone’s day, in whatever small way. I know I attempt to say something nice to every poster who has a opposite point of view from mine.
    And, sheesh, you can always skip my posts.

    Comment by benny "Still Peak demand" cole | November 1, 2008

  112. TJIT-Point taken, but there is an election coming up, and this is an energy blog. My post concerned partisanship, Palin’s free money for Alaskans taken from oil companies (an energy issue), and McCain’s bashing of “Big Oil” (a regular in his stump speeches), and the Dems lack of a coherent policy other wanting to tax Big Oil and Bush’s love of corn ethanol. I also mentioned ANWR and drilling of the coast of Florida. I would say most of my post on on-topic. I still do not know why I was banned from TOD, but it happened when I asked what is the source of funding behind TOD, and its cloaked-identitity editors. I also asked anybody at TOD to identify a single promising alternative energy technology that was not having money thrown at it. (and many not so promising technoogies, as RR points out). That point is that we have plenty of capital to invest in new technologies, so we are not doomed. That post got me kicked off TOD the second time. I would say TOD is not a forum but some sort of tool.A still a very vaild question, especially given the extremely speculative nature of the NYMEX, is who finances TOD? I would be a lot more concerned about who backs TOD (directly or indirectly), then if Benny posts some tired ideas. I have sent queries to TOD editors and cc’ed the CFTC. We will see if anything turns up. Maybe TOD is clean as a whistle. I was getting rapidly tired of the relentess doomsterism, and gonzo economics of the TOD anyway, and it is better to just post at R squared. Here, (most) readers actually enjoy each other’s posts, and regard different points of views as challenging and interesting. I hope my views and occasional attempts at wry humor lighten somone’s day, in whatever small way. I know I attempt to say something nice to every poster who has a opposite point of view from mine. And, sheesh, you can always skip my posts.

    Comment by benny "Still Peak demand" cole | November 1, 2008

  113. @kit p

    Edit: “I live in the only state in the US with public electricity..” to “I live in the only state in the US with 100% public electricity.”

    Such an oversight. Shame on me !

    That comment was about infrastructure. Not regulatory horror stories.

    While ‘exponential growth’ is factually correct I think it can be quite misleading. Of course if you find it valuable to initiate a dialog via controversy that will get you responses. You got me 😉

    I am, a voracious reader on this subject, and mostly lurk.

    Regarding reading the National Energy Policy 2001 – I haven’t. So ? Is that the only way to skin a cat. Interesting you didn’t provide a link to it, since you lead with it.

    BTW, you ever visit rigzone’s site to see the status of oil rigs ?

    Do you expect the US to drill out of depletion ?

    Rhetorical Q’s, no need to answer me. Those Q’s are sure to come up it you engage long enough.

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  114. @kit p

    Edit: “I live in the only state in the US with public electricity..” to “I live in the only state in the US with 100% public electricity.”

    Such an oversight. Shame on me !

    That comment was about infrastructure. Not regulatory horror stories.

    While ‘exponential growth’ is factually correct I think it can be quite misleading. Of course if you find it valuable to initiate a dialog via controversy that will get you responses. You got me 😉

    I am, a voracious reader on this subject, and mostly lurk.

    Regarding reading the National Energy Policy 2001 – I haven’t. So ? Is that the only way to skin a cat. Interesting you didn’t provide a link to it, since you lead with it.

    BTW, you ever visit rigzone’s site to see the status of oil rigs ?

    Do you expect the US to drill out of depletion ?

    Rhetorical Q’s, no need to answer me. Those Q’s are sure to come up it you engage long enough.

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  115. @kit p

    Edit: “I live in the only state in the US with public electricity..” to “I live in the only state in the US with 100% public electricity.”

    Such an oversight. Shame on me !

    That comment was about infrastructure. Not regulatory horror stories.

    While ‘exponential growth’ is factually correct I think it can be quite misleading. Of course if you find it valuable to initiate a dialog via controversy that will get you responses. You got me 😉

    I am, a voracious reader on this subject, and mostly lurk.

    Regarding reading the National Energy Policy 2001 – I haven’t. So ? Is that the only way to skin a cat. Interesting you didn’t provide a link to it, since you lead with it.

    BTW, you ever visit rigzone’s site to see the status of oil rigs ?

    Do you expect the US to drill out of depletion ?

    Rhetorical Q’s, no need to answer me. Those Q’s are sure to come up it you engage long enough.

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  116. @kit p

    Edit: “I live in the only state in the US with public electricity..” to “I live in the only state in the US with 100% public electricity.”

    Such an oversight. Shame on me !

    That comment was about infrastructure. Not regulatory horror stories.

    While ‘exponential growth’ is factually correct I think it can be quite misleading. Of course if you find it valuable to initiate a dialog via controversy that will get you responses. You got me 😉

    I am, a voracious reader on this subject, and mostly lurk.

    Regarding reading the National Energy Policy 2001 – I haven’t. So ? Is that the only way to skin a cat. Interesting you didn’t provide a link to it, since you lead with it.

    BTW, you ever visit rigzone’s site to see the status of oil rigs ?

    Do you expect the US to drill out of depletion ?

    Rhetorical Q’s, no need to answer me. Those Q’s are sure to come up it you engage long enough.

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  117. @kit p

    Edit: “I live in the only state in the US with public electricity..” to “I live in the only state in the US with 100% public electricity.”

    Such an oversight. Shame on me !

    That comment was about infrastructure. Not regulatory horror stories.

    While ‘exponential growth’ is factually correct I think it can be quite misleading. Of course if you find it valuable to initiate a dialog via controversy that will get you responses. You got me 😉

    I am, a voracious reader on this subject, and mostly lurk.

    Regarding reading the National Energy Policy 2001 – I haven’t. So ? Is that the only way to skin a cat. Interesting you didn’t provide a link to it, since you lead with it.

    BTW, you ever visit rigzone’s site to see the status of oil rigs ?

    Do you expect the US to drill out of depletion ?

    Rhetorical Q’s, no need to answer me. Those Q’s are sure to come up it you engage long enough.

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  118. @kit p

    Edit: “I live in the only state in the US with public electricity..” to “I live in the only state in the US with 100% public electricity.”

    Such an oversight. Shame on me !

    That comment was about infrastructure. Not regulatory horror stories.

    While ‘exponential growth’ is factually correct I think it can be quite misleading. Of course if you find it valuable to initiate a dialog via controversy that will get you responses. You got me 😉

    I am, a voracious reader on this subject, and mostly lurk.

    Regarding reading the National Energy Policy 2001 – I haven’t. So ? Is that the only way to skin a cat. Interesting you didn’t provide a link to it, since you lead with it.

    BTW, you ever visit rigzone’s site to see the status of oil rigs ?

    Do you expect the US to drill out of depletion ?

    Rhetorical Q’s, no need to answer me. Those Q’s are sure to come up it you engage long enough.

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  119. @kit p

    Edit: “I live in the only state in the US with public electricity..” to “I live in the only state in the US with 100% public electricity.”

    Such an oversight. Shame on me !

    That comment was about infrastructure. Not regulatory horror stories.

    While ‘exponential growth’ is factually correct I think it can be quite misleading. Of course if you find it valuable to initiate a dialog via controversy that will get you responses. You got me 😉

    I am, a voracious reader on this subject, and mostly lurk.

    Regarding reading the National Energy Policy 2001 – I haven’t. So ? Is that the only way to skin a cat. Interesting you didn’t provide a link to it, since you lead with it.

    BTW, you ever visit rigzone’s site to see the status of oil rigs ?

    Do you expect the US to drill out of depletion ?

    Rhetorical Q’s, no need to answer me. Those Q’s are sure to come up it you engage long enough.

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  120. @kit pEdit: “I live in the only state in the US with public electricity..” to “I live in the only state in the US with 100% public electricity.”Such an oversight. Shame on me !That comment was about infrastructure. Not regulatory horror stories. While ‘exponential growth’ is factually correct I think it can be quite misleading. Of course if you find it valuable to initiate a dialog via controversy that will get you responses. You got me ;)I am, a voracious reader on this subject, and mostly lurk.Regarding reading the National Energy Policy 2001 – I haven’t. So ? Is that the only way to skin a cat. Interesting you didn’t provide a link to it, since you lead with it.BTW, you ever visit rigzone’s site to see the status of oil rigs ?Do you expect the US to drill out of depletion ?Rhetorical Q’s, no need to answer me. Those Q’s are sure to come up it you engage long enough.RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  121. kit – I read the entire National Energy Policy report on the day it came out.

    I thought it was a very serious attempt to propose a balanced energy plan. It is too bad the Democrats chose to attack Dick Cheney and those who participated in the meetings rather than debate the merits of the report itself.

    What do you think the response would have been if someone took the report word-for-word and submitted it as Obama’s energy policy? Obamabots and the mainstream press would fall all over themselves about Obama’s energy brilliance.

    The Democrat Party was never serious about tackling energy issues other than as a wedge issue to hit Republicans with.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 1, 2008

  122. kit – I read the entire National Energy Policy report on the day it came out.

    I thought it was a very serious attempt to propose a balanced energy plan. It is too bad the Democrats chose to attack Dick Cheney and those who participated in the meetings rather than debate the merits of the report itself.

    What do you think the response would have been if someone took the report word-for-word and submitted it as Obama’s energy policy? Obamabots and the mainstream press would fall all over themselves about Obama’s energy brilliance.

    The Democrat Party was never serious about tackling energy issues other than as a wedge issue to hit Republicans with.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 1, 2008

  123. kit – I read the entire National Energy Policy report on the day it came out.

    I thought it was a very serious attempt to propose a balanced energy plan. It is too bad the Democrats chose to attack Dick Cheney and those who participated in the meetings rather than debate the merits of the report itself.

    What do you think the response would have been if someone took the report word-for-word and submitted it as Obama’s energy policy? Obamabots and the mainstream press would fall all over themselves about Obama’s energy brilliance.

    The Democrat Party was never serious about tackling energy issues other than as a wedge issue to hit Republicans with.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 1, 2008

  124. kit – I read the entire National Energy Policy report on the day it came out.

    I thought it was a very serious attempt to propose a balanced energy plan. It is too bad the Democrats chose to attack Dick Cheney and those who participated in the meetings rather than debate the merits of the report itself.

    What do you think the response would have been if someone took the report word-for-word and submitted it as Obama’s energy policy? Obamabots and the mainstream press would fall all over themselves about Obama’s energy brilliance.

    The Democrat Party was never serious about tackling energy issues other than as a wedge issue to hit Republicans with.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 1, 2008

  125. kit – I read the entire National Energy Policy report on the day it came out.

    I thought it was a very serious attempt to propose a balanced energy plan. It is too bad the Democrats chose to attack Dick Cheney and those who participated in the meetings rather than debate the merits of the report itself.

    What do you think the response would have been if someone took the report word-for-word and submitted it as Obama’s energy policy? Obamabots and the mainstream press would fall all over themselves about Obama’s energy brilliance.

    The Democrat Party was never serious about tackling energy issues other than as a wedge issue to hit Republicans with.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 1, 2008

  126. kit – I read the entire National Energy Policy report on the day it came out.

    I thought it was a very serious attempt to propose a balanced energy plan. It is too bad the Democrats chose to attack Dick Cheney and those who participated in the meetings rather than debate the merits of the report itself.

    What do you think the response would have been if someone took the report word-for-word and submitted it as Obama’s energy policy? Obamabots and the mainstream press would fall all over themselves about Obama’s energy brilliance.

    The Democrat Party was never serious about tackling energy issues other than as a wedge issue to hit Republicans with.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 1, 2008

  127. kit – I read the entire National Energy Policy report on the day it came out.

    I thought it was a very serious attempt to propose a balanced energy plan. It is too bad the Democrats chose to attack Dick Cheney and those who participated in the meetings rather than debate the merits of the report itself.

    What do you think the response would have been if someone took the report word-for-word and submitted it as Obama’s energy policy? Obamabots and the mainstream press would fall all over themselves about Obama’s energy brilliance.

    The Democrat Party was never serious about tackling energy issues other than as a wedge issue to hit Republicans with.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 1, 2008

  128. kit – I read the entire National Energy Policy report on the day it came out. I thought it was a very serious attempt to propose a balanced energy plan. It is too bad the Democrats chose to attack Dick Cheney and those who participated in the meetings rather than debate the merits of the report itself. What do you think the response would have been if someone took the report word-for-word and submitted it as Obama’s energy policy? Obamabots and the mainstream press would fall all over themselves about Obama’s energy brilliance. The Democrat Party was never serious about tackling energy issues other than as a wedge issue to hit Republicans with.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 1, 2008

  129. I haven’t heard any Republican saying we can/should drill our way to independence. What I have heard is that drilling needs to be part of the solution.

    This stands in contrast to the Democrats who appear to want no/little expansion of domestic production, and who want to take as much money as possible out of the profits of oil companies as prices rise. Which, of course, they certainly will if we don’t make any effort to expand production during what is likely to be a decades-long transition period.

    Redistributing money from oil companies is a zero-sum game within the borders of the USA – it won’t change the fact that whatever we don’t produce ourselves will have to be imported. Moreover, the specious argument about how future production won’t lower prices today misses a critical point: our failure to produce more oil means world production will be lower than it otherwise would be, which means in turn that the marginal price of a barrel of oil in the future will be higher than it otherwise would be. And of course, the price of this marginal barrel will set the price of every barrel, include (obviously) all barrels we’re still importing.

    It seems certain that the Democrats will be running all three branches of the federal government come January. I guess we’ll find out if foregoing more domestic oil and a continuation of 3 decades of foot-dragging on nuclear power won’t matter as we put the pedal to the metal on solar, wind, and (especially) natural gas.

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  130. I haven’t heard any Republican saying we can/should drill our way to independence. What I have heard is that drilling needs to be part of the solution.

    This stands in contrast to the Democrats who appear to want no/little expansion of domestic production, and who want to take as much money as possible out of the profits of oil companies as prices rise. Which, of course, they certainly will if we don’t make any effort to expand production during what is likely to be a decades-long transition period.

    Redistributing money from oil companies is a zero-sum game within the borders of the USA – it won’t change the fact that whatever we don’t produce ourselves will have to be imported. Moreover, the specious argument about how future production won’t lower prices today misses a critical point: our failure to produce more oil means world production will be lower than it otherwise would be, which means in turn that the marginal price of a barrel of oil in the future will be higher than it otherwise would be. And of course, the price of this marginal barrel will set the price of every barrel, include (obviously) all barrels we’re still importing.

    It seems certain that the Democrats will be running all three branches of the federal government come January. I guess we’ll find out if foregoing more domestic oil and a continuation of 3 decades of foot-dragging on nuclear power won’t matter as we put the pedal to the metal on solar, wind, and (especially) natural gas.

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  131. I haven’t heard any Republican saying we can/should drill our way to independence. What I have heard is that drilling needs to be part of the solution.

    This stands in contrast to the Democrats who appear to want no/little expansion of domestic production, and who want to take as much money as possible out of the profits of oil companies as prices rise. Which, of course, they certainly will if we don’t make any effort to expand production during what is likely to be a decades-long transition period.

    Redistributing money from oil companies is a zero-sum game within the borders of the USA – it won’t change the fact that whatever we don’t produce ourselves will have to be imported. Moreover, the specious argument about how future production won’t lower prices today misses a critical point: our failure to produce more oil means world production will be lower than it otherwise would be, which means in turn that the marginal price of a barrel of oil in the future will be higher than it otherwise would be. And of course, the price of this marginal barrel will set the price of every barrel, include (obviously) all barrels we’re still importing.

    It seems certain that the Democrats will be running all three branches of the federal government come January. I guess we’ll find out if foregoing more domestic oil and a continuation of 3 decades of foot-dragging on nuclear power won’t matter as we put the pedal to the metal on solar, wind, and (especially) natural gas.

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  132. I haven’t heard any Republican saying we can/should drill our way to independence. What I have heard is that drilling needs to be part of the solution.

    This stands in contrast to the Democrats who appear to want no/little expansion of domestic production, and who want to take as much money as possible out of the profits of oil companies as prices rise. Which, of course, they certainly will if we don’t make any effort to expand production during what is likely to be a decades-long transition period.

    Redistributing money from oil companies is a zero-sum game within the borders of the USA – it won’t change the fact that whatever we don’t produce ourselves will have to be imported. Moreover, the specious argument about how future production won’t lower prices today misses a critical point: our failure to produce more oil means world production will be lower than it otherwise would be, which means in turn that the marginal price of a barrel of oil in the future will be higher than it otherwise would be. And of course, the price of this marginal barrel will set the price of every barrel, include (obviously) all barrels we’re still importing.

    It seems certain that the Democrats will be running all three branches of the federal government come January. I guess we’ll find out if foregoing more domestic oil and a continuation of 3 decades of foot-dragging on nuclear power won’t matter as we put the pedal to the metal on solar, wind, and (especially) natural gas.

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  133. I haven’t heard any Republican saying we can/should drill our way to independence. What I have heard is that drilling needs to be part of the solution.

    This stands in contrast to the Democrats who appear to want no/little expansion of domestic production, and who want to take as much money as possible out of the profits of oil companies as prices rise. Which, of course, they certainly will if we don’t make any effort to expand production during what is likely to be a decades-long transition period.

    Redistributing money from oil companies is a zero-sum game within the borders of the USA – it won’t change the fact that whatever we don’t produce ourselves will have to be imported. Moreover, the specious argument about how future production won’t lower prices today misses a critical point: our failure to produce more oil means world production will be lower than it otherwise would be, which means in turn that the marginal price of a barrel of oil in the future will be higher than it otherwise would be. And of course, the price of this marginal barrel will set the price of every barrel, include (obviously) all barrels we’re still importing.

    It seems certain that the Democrats will be running all three branches of the federal government come January. I guess we’ll find out if foregoing more domestic oil and a continuation of 3 decades of foot-dragging on nuclear power won’t matter as we put the pedal to the metal on solar, wind, and (especially) natural gas.

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  134. I haven’t heard any Republican saying we can/should drill our way to independence. What I have heard is that drilling needs to be part of the solution.

    This stands in contrast to the Democrats who appear to want no/little expansion of domestic production, and who want to take as much money as possible out of the profits of oil companies as prices rise. Which, of course, they certainly will if we don’t make any effort to expand production during what is likely to be a decades-long transition period.

    Redistributing money from oil companies is a zero-sum game within the borders of the USA – it won’t change the fact that whatever we don’t produce ourselves will have to be imported. Moreover, the specious argument about how future production won’t lower prices today misses a critical point: our failure to produce more oil means world production will be lower than it otherwise would be, which means in turn that the marginal price of a barrel of oil in the future will be higher than it otherwise would be. And of course, the price of this marginal barrel will set the price of every barrel, include (obviously) all barrels we’re still importing.

    It seems certain that the Democrats will be running all three branches of the federal government come January. I guess we’ll find out if foregoing more domestic oil and a continuation of 3 decades of foot-dragging on nuclear power won’t matter as we put the pedal to the metal on solar, wind, and (especially) natural gas.

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  135. I haven’t heard any Republican saying we can/should drill our way to independence. What I have heard is that drilling needs to be part of the solution.

    This stands in contrast to the Democrats who appear to want no/little expansion of domestic production, and who want to take as much money as possible out of the profits of oil companies as prices rise. Which, of course, they certainly will if we don’t make any effort to expand production during what is likely to be a decades-long transition period.

    Redistributing money from oil companies is a zero-sum game within the borders of the USA – it won’t change the fact that whatever we don’t produce ourselves will have to be imported. Moreover, the specious argument about how future production won’t lower prices today misses a critical point: our failure to produce more oil means world production will be lower than it otherwise would be, which means in turn that the marginal price of a barrel of oil in the future will be higher than it otherwise would be. And of course, the price of this marginal barrel will set the price of every barrel, include (obviously) all barrels we’re still importing.

    It seems certain that the Democrats will be running all three branches of the federal government come January. I guess we’ll find out if foregoing more domestic oil and a continuation of 3 decades of foot-dragging on nuclear power won’t matter as we put the pedal to the metal on solar, wind, and (especially) natural gas.

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  136. I haven’t heard any Republican saying we can/should drill our way to independence. What I have heard is that drilling needs to be part of the solution.This stands in contrast to the Democrats who appear to want no/little expansion of domestic production, and who want to take as much money as possible out of the profits of oil companies as prices rise. Which, of course, they certainly will if we don’t make any effort to expand production during what is likely to be a decades-long transition period.Redistributing money from oil companies is a zero-sum game within the borders of the USA – it won’t change the fact that whatever we don’t produce ourselves will have to be imported. Moreover, the specious argument about how future production won’t lower prices today misses a critical point: our failure to produce more oil means world production will be lower than it otherwise would be, which means in turn that the marginal price of a barrel of oil in the future will be higher than it otherwise would be. And of course, the price of this marginal barrel will set the price of every barrel, include (obviously) all barrels we’re still importing.It seems certain that the Democrats will be running all three branches of the federal government come January. I guess we’ll find out if foregoing more domestic oil and a continuation of 3 decades of foot-dragging on nuclear power won’t matter as we put the pedal to the metal on solar, wind, and (especially) natural gas.

    Comment by Anonymous | November 1, 2008

  137. Anon, I have heard lots of conservatives here in the heartland suggest that we have plenty of oil, it’s just that the liberals won’t let us drill for it. That implies that these people think we could drill our way to independence.

    Comment by Ben10 | November 2, 2008

  138. Anon, I have heard lots of conservatives here in the heartland suggest that we have plenty of oil, it’s just that the liberals won’t let us drill for it. That implies that these people think we could drill our way to independence.

    Comment by Ben10 | November 2, 2008

  139. Anon, I have heard lots of conservatives here in the heartland suggest that we have plenty of oil, it’s just that the liberals won’t let us drill for it. That implies that these people think we could drill our way to independence.

    Comment by Ben10 | November 2, 2008

  140. Anon, I have heard lots of conservatives here in the heartland suggest that we have plenty of oil, it’s just that the liberals won’t let us drill for it. That implies that these people think we could drill our way to independence.

    Comment by Ben10 | November 2, 2008

  141. Anon, I have heard lots of conservatives here in the heartland suggest that we have plenty of oil, it’s just that the liberals won’t let us drill for it. That implies that these people think we could drill our way to independence.

    Comment by Ben10 | November 2, 2008

  142. Anon, I have heard lots of conservatives here in the heartland suggest that we have plenty of oil, it’s just that the liberals won’t let us drill for it. That implies that these people think we could drill our way to independence.

    Comment by Ben10 | November 2, 2008

  143. Anon, I have heard lots of conservatives here in the heartland suggest that we have plenty of oil, it’s just that the liberals won’t let us drill for it. That implies that these people think we could drill our way to independence.

    Comment by Ben10 | November 2, 2008

  144. Anon, I have heard lots of conservatives here in the heartland suggest that we have plenty of oil, it’s just that the liberals won’t let us drill for it. That implies that these people think we could drill our way to independence.

    Comment by Ben10 | November 2, 2008

  145. “So what is the record of the Bush Administration”

    Record oil prices and more dependence on foreign oil?

    Comment by Ben10 | November 2, 2008

  146. “So what is the record of the Bush Administration”

    Record oil prices and more dependence on foreign oil?

    Comment by Ben10 | November 2, 2008

  147. “So what is the record of the Bush Administration”

    Record oil prices and more dependence on foreign oil?

    Comment by Ben10 | November 2, 2008

  148. “So what is the record of the Bush Administration”

    Record oil prices and more dependence on foreign oil?

    Comment by Ben10 | November 2, 2008

  149. “So what is the record of the Bush Administration”

    Record oil prices and more dependence on foreign oil?

    Comment by Ben10 | November 2, 2008

  150. “So what is the record of the Bush Administration”

    Record oil prices and more dependence on foreign oil?

    Comment by Ben10 | November 2, 2008

  151. “So what is the record of the Bush Administration”

    Record oil prices and more dependence on foreign oil?

    Comment by Ben10 | November 2, 2008

  152. “So what is the record of the Bush Administration”Record oil prices and more dependence on foreign oil?

    Comment by Ben10 | November 2, 2008

  153. @King

    First thanks for the link to the report. I’ve got it bookmarked, but I honestly don’t relish the thought of reading a product of this administration’s.

    Which brings me to:[quote=”It is too bad the Democrats chose to attack Dick Cheney and those who participated in the meetings rather than debate the merits of the report itself.”]It is too bad the Democrats chose to attack Dick Cheney and those who participated in the meetings rather than debate the merits of the report itself.[/quote]

    Yes, the Dems went into wedge mode ! Surprise surprise !!??

    C’mon look beyond your partisanship – are you implying that you prefer politics carried on behind closed doors as has been the practice throughout our history ?

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  154. @King

    First thanks for the link to the report. I’ve got it bookmarked, but I honestly don’t relish the thought of reading a product of this administration’s.

    Which brings me to:[quote=”It is too bad the Democrats chose to attack Dick Cheney and those who participated in the meetings rather than debate the merits of the report itself.”]It is too bad the Democrats chose to attack Dick Cheney and those who participated in the meetings rather than debate the merits of the report itself.[/quote]

    Yes, the Dems went into wedge mode ! Surprise surprise !!??

    C’mon look beyond your partisanship – are you implying that you prefer politics carried on behind closed doors as has been the practice throughout our history ?

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  155. @King

    First thanks for the link to the report. I’ve got it bookmarked, but I honestly don’t relish the thought of reading a product of this administration’s.

    Which brings me to:[quote=”It is too bad the Democrats chose to attack Dick Cheney and those who participated in the meetings rather than debate the merits of the report itself.”]It is too bad the Democrats chose to attack Dick Cheney and those who participated in the meetings rather than debate the merits of the report itself.[/quote]

    Yes, the Dems went into wedge mode ! Surprise surprise !!??

    C’mon look beyond your partisanship – are you implying that you prefer politics carried on behind closed doors as has been the practice throughout our history ?

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  156. @King

    First thanks for the link to the report. I’ve got it bookmarked, but I honestly don’t relish the thought of reading a product of this administration’s.

    Which brings me to:[quote=”It is too bad the Democrats chose to attack Dick Cheney and those who participated in the meetings rather than debate the merits of the report itself.”]It is too bad the Democrats chose to attack Dick Cheney and those who participated in the meetings rather than debate the merits of the report itself.[/quote]

    Yes, the Dems went into wedge mode ! Surprise surprise !!??

    C’mon look beyond your partisanship – are you implying that you prefer politics carried on behind closed doors as has been the practice throughout our history ?

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  157. @King

    First thanks for the link to the report. I’ve got it bookmarked, but I honestly don’t relish the thought of reading a product of this administration’s.

    Which brings me to:[quote=”It is too bad the Democrats chose to attack Dick Cheney and those who participated in the meetings rather than debate the merits of the report itself.”]It is too bad the Democrats chose to attack Dick Cheney and those who participated in the meetings rather than debate the merits of the report itself.[/quote]

    Yes, the Dems went into wedge mode ! Surprise surprise !!??

    C’mon look beyond your partisanship – are you implying that you prefer politics carried on behind closed doors as has been the practice throughout our history ?

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  158. @King

    First thanks for the link to the report. I’ve got it bookmarked, but I honestly don’t relish the thought of reading a product of this administration’s.

    Which brings me to:[quote=”It is too bad the Democrats chose to attack Dick Cheney and those who participated in the meetings rather than debate the merits of the report itself.”]It is too bad the Democrats chose to attack Dick Cheney and those who participated in the meetings rather than debate the merits of the report itself.[/quote]

    Yes, the Dems went into wedge mode ! Surprise surprise !!??

    C’mon look beyond your partisanship – are you implying that you prefer politics carried on behind closed doors as has been the practice throughout our history ?

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  159. @King

    First thanks for the link to the report. I’ve got it bookmarked, but I honestly don’t relish the thought of reading a product of this administration’s.

    Which brings me to:[quote=”It is too bad the Democrats chose to attack Dick Cheney and those who participated in the meetings rather than debate the merits of the report itself.”]It is too bad the Democrats chose to attack Dick Cheney and those who participated in the meetings rather than debate the merits of the report itself.[/quote]

    Yes, the Dems went into wedge mode ! Surprise surprise !!??

    C’mon look beyond your partisanship – are you implying that you prefer politics carried on behind closed doors as has been the practice throughout our history ?

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  160. @KingFirst thanks for the link to the report. I’ve got it bookmarked, but I honestly don’t relish the thought of reading a product of this administration’s.Which brings me to:[quote=”It is too bad the Democrats chose to attack Dick Cheney and those who participated in the meetings rather than debate the merits of the report itself.”]It is too bad the Democrats chose to attack Dick Cheney and those who participated in the meetings rather than debate the merits of the report itself.[/quote]Yes, the Dems went into wedge mode ! Surprise surprise !!??C’mon look beyond your partisanship – are you implying that you prefer politics carried on behind closed doors as has been the practice throughout our history ?RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  161. RBM – you don’t need to read the entire report. Just skip to the recommendations in the appendix. See if you disagree with anything there. The report called for increasing tax credits for alternatives and renewables, more conservation, opening areas for drilling, more nuclear, greater access for international oil companies to foreign energy investment, a lot of the very things we discuss here.

    So who did you want Cheney to meet with to discuss energy? Movie executives? The purpose of the meetings was to produce the report, which was supposed to START the policy debate. But no, Henry Waxman immediately went on a witch hunt over who met with who. Any laws or policy initiatives would have been debated. But it never got that far.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 2, 2008

  162. RBM – you don’t need to read the entire report. Just skip to the recommendations in the appendix. See if you disagree with anything there. The report called for increasing tax credits for alternatives and renewables, more conservation, opening areas for drilling, more nuclear, greater access for international oil companies to foreign energy investment, a lot of the very things we discuss here.

    So who did you want Cheney to meet with to discuss energy? Movie executives? The purpose of the meetings was to produce the report, which was supposed to START the policy debate. But no, Henry Waxman immediately went on a witch hunt over who met with who. Any laws or policy initiatives would have been debated. But it never got that far.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 2, 2008

  163. RBM – you don’t need to read the entire report. Just skip to the recommendations in the appendix. See if you disagree with anything there. The report called for increasing tax credits for alternatives and renewables, more conservation, opening areas for drilling, more nuclear, greater access for international oil companies to foreign energy investment, a lot of the very things we discuss here.

    So who did you want Cheney to meet with to discuss energy? Movie executives? The purpose of the meetings was to produce the report, which was supposed to START the policy debate. But no, Henry Waxman immediately went on a witch hunt over who met with who. Any laws or policy initiatives would have been debated. But it never got that far.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 2, 2008

  164. RBM – you don’t need to read the entire report. Just skip to the recommendations in the appendix. See if you disagree with anything there. The report called for increasing tax credits for alternatives and renewables, more conservation, opening areas for drilling, more nuclear, greater access for international oil companies to foreign energy investment, a lot of the very things we discuss here.

    So who did you want Cheney to meet with to discuss energy? Movie executives? The purpose of the meetings was to produce the report, which was supposed to START the policy debate. But no, Henry Waxman immediately went on a witch hunt over who met with who. Any laws or policy initiatives would have been debated. But it never got that far.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 2, 2008

  165. RBM – you don’t need to read the entire report. Just skip to the recommendations in the appendix. See if you disagree with anything there. The report called for increasing tax credits for alternatives and renewables, more conservation, opening areas for drilling, more nuclear, greater access for international oil companies to foreign energy investment, a lot of the very things we discuss here.

    So who did you want Cheney to meet with to discuss energy? Movie executives? The purpose of the meetings was to produce the report, which was supposed to START the policy debate. But no, Henry Waxman immediately went on a witch hunt over who met with who. Any laws or policy initiatives would have been debated. But it never got that far.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 2, 2008

  166. RBM – you don’t need to read the entire report. Just skip to the recommendations in the appendix. See if you disagree with anything there. The report called for increasing tax credits for alternatives and renewables, more conservation, opening areas for drilling, more nuclear, greater access for international oil companies to foreign energy investment, a lot of the very things we discuss here.

    So who did you want Cheney to meet with to discuss energy? Movie executives? The purpose of the meetings was to produce the report, which was supposed to START the policy debate. But no, Henry Waxman immediately went on a witch hunt over who met with who. Any laws or policy initiatives would have been debated. But it never got that far.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 2, 2008

  167. RBM – you don’t need to read the entire report. Just skip to the recommendations in the appendix. See if you disagree with anything there. The report called for increasing tax credits for alternatives and renewables, more conservation, opening areas for drilling, more nuclear, greater access for international oil companies to foreign energy investment, a lot of the very things we discuss here.

    So who did you want Cheney to meet with to discuss energy? Movie executives? The purpose of the meetings was to produce the report, which was supposed to START the policy debate. But no, Henry Waxman immediately went on a witch hunt over who met with who. Any laws or policy initiatives would have been debated. But it never got that far.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 2, 2008

  168. RBM – you don’t need to read the entire report. Just skip to the recommendations in the appendix. See if you disagree with anything there. The report called for increasing tax credits for alternatives and renewables, more conservation, opening areas for drilling, more nuclear, greater access for international oil companies to foreign energy investment, a lot of the very things we discuss here. So who did you want Cheney to meet with to discuss energy? Movie executives? The purpose of the meetings was to produce the report, which was supposed to START the policy debate. But no, Henry Waxman immediately went on a witch hunt over who met with who. Any laws or policy initiatives would have been debated. But it never got that far.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 2, 2008

  169. Ok, here is an interesting piece on energy policy Prairie Fire . Go to page 30 for “The Real and Phony Energy Crisis”.

    We could have some fun with it. I can see a game similar to the is it Al Gore or the Unabomber. We could pull quotes from each group and you would have to guess was it the Democrats, Oil Watchdog, or the Weather Underground.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 2, 2008

  170. @Ben
    It is true that world demand for oil has increased and China has stopped exporting oil while Bush was president. It is also true that Bush failed to implement parts of the energy policy that would have increased domestic production. Are you saying that Barbra Boxer recommended increasing production in the Santa Barbra channel only to have it blocked by a Bush veto?

    @RBM
    Which state is 100% public power?

    Comment by Kit P | November 2, 2008

  171. Ok, here is an interesting piece on energy policy Prairie Fire . Go to page 30 for “The Real and Phony Energy Crisis”.

    We could have some fun with it. I can see a game similar to the is it Al Gore or the Unabomber. We could pull quotes from each group and you would have to guess was it the Democrats, Oil Watchdog, or the Weather Underground.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 2, 2008

  172. @Ben
    It is true that world demand for oil has increased and China has stopped exporting oil while Bush was president. It is also true that Bush failed to implement parts of the energy policy that would have increased domestic production. Are you saying that Barbra Boxer recommended increasing production in the Santa Barbra channel only to have it blocked by a Bush veto?

    @RBM
    Which state is 100% public power?

    Comment by Kit P | November 2, 2008

  173. Ok, here is an interesting piece on energy policy Prairie Fire . Go to page 30 for “The Real and Phony Energy Crisis”.

    We could have some fun with it. I can see a game similar to the is it Al Gore or the Unabomber. We could pull quotes from each group and you would have to guess was it the Democrats, Oil Watchdog, or the Weather Underground.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 2, 2008

  174. @Ben
    It is true that world demand for oil has increased and China has stopped exporting oil while Bush was president. It is also true that Bush failed to implement parts of the energy policy that would have increased domestic production. Are you saying that Barbra Boxer recommended increasing production in the Santa Barbra channel only to have it blocked by a Bush veto?

    @RBM
    Which state is 100% public power?

    Comment by Kit P | November 2, 2008

  175. Ok, here is an interesting piece on energy policy Prairie Fire . Go to page 30 for “The Real and Phony Energy Crisis”.

    We could have some fun with it. I can see a game similar to the is it Al Gore or the Unabomber. We could pull quotes from each group and you would have to guess was it the Democrats, Oil Watchdog, or the Weather Underground.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 2, 2008

  176. @Ben
    It is true that world demand for oil has increased and China has stopped exporting oil while Bush was president. It is also true that Bush failed to implement parts of the energy policy that would have increased domestic production. Are you saying that Barbra Boxer recommended increasing production in the Santa Barbra channel only to have it blocked by a Bush veto?

    @RBM
    Which state is 100% public power?

    Comment by Kit P | November 2, 2008

  177. Ok, here is an interesting piece on energy policy Prairie Fire . Go to page 30 for “The Real and Phony Energy Crisis”.

    We could have some fun with it. I can see a game similar to the is it Al Gore or the Unabomber. We could pull quotes from each group and you would have to guess was it the Democrats, Oil Watchdog, or the Weather Underground.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 2, 2008

  178. @Ben
    It is true that world demand for oil has increased and China has stopped exporting oil while Bush was president. It is also true that Bush failed to implement parts of the energy policy that would have increased domestic production. Are you saying that Barbra Boxer recommended increasing production in the Santa Barbra channel only to have it blocked by a Bush veto?

    @RBM
    Which state is 100% public power?

    Comment by Kit P | November 2, 2008

  179. Ok, here is an interesting piece on energy policy Prairie Fire . Go to page 30 for “The Real and Phony Energy Crisis”.

    We could have some fun with it. I can see a game similar to the is it Al Gore or the Unabomber. We could pull quotes from each group and you would have to guess was it the Democrats, Oil Watchdog, or the Weather Underground.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 2, 2008

  180. @Ben
    It is true that world demand for oil has increased and China has stopped exporting oil while Bush was president. It is also true that Bush failed to implement parts of the energy policy that would have increased domestic production. Are you saying that Barbra Boxer recommended increasing production in the Santa Barbra channel only to have it blocked by a Bush veto?

    @RBM
    Which state is 100% public power?

    Comment by Kit P | November 2, 2008

  181. Ok, here is an interesting piece on energy policy Prairie Fire . Go to page 30 for “The Real and Phony Energy Crisis”.

    We could have some fun with it. I can see a game similar to the is it Al Gore or the Unabomber. We could pull quotes from each group and you would have to guess was it the Democrats, Oil Watchdog, or the Weather Underground.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 2, 2008

  182. @Ben
    It is true that world demand for oil has increased and China has stopped exporting oil while Bush was president. It is also true that Bush failed to implement parts of the energy policy that would have increased domestic production. Are you saying that Barbra Boxer recommended increasing production in the Santa Barbra channel only to have it blocked by a Bush veto?

    @RBM
    Which state is 100% public power?

    Comment by Kit P | November 2, 2008

  183. Ok, here is an interesting piece on energy policy Prairie Fire . Go to page 30 for “The Real and Phony Energy Crisis”. We could have some fun with it. I can see a game similar to the is it Al Gore or the Unabomber. We could pull quotes from each group and you would have to guess was it the Democrats, Oil Watchdog, or the Weather Underground.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 2, 2008

  184. @BenIt is true that world demand for oil has increased and China has stopped exporting oil while Bush was president. It is also true that Bush failed to implement parts of the energy policy that would have increased domestic production. Are you saying that Barbra Boxer recommended increasing production in the Santa Barbra channel only to have it blocked by a Bush veto?@RBMWhich state is 100% public power?

    Comment by Kit P | November 2, 2008

  185. Hmmm Kit, your bullet point list of Bush plans seems at odds with my memory of NREL defunding and then refunding.

    Didn’t a variety of alt-energy programs get cut in the first half of the Bush administration, only to be hastily restarted?

    Fits and starts seem endemic to our energy “transitions.”

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  186. Hmmm Kit, your bullet point list of Bush plans seems at odds with my memory of NREL defunding and then refunding.

    Didn’t a variety of alt-energy programs get cut in the first half of the Bush administration, only to be hastily restarted?

    Fits and starts seem endemic to our energy “transitions.”

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  187. Hmmm Kit, your bullet point list of Bush plans seems at odds with my memory of NREL defunding and then refunding.

    Didn’t a variety of alt-energy programs get cut in the first half of the Bush administration, only to be hastily restarted?

    Fits and starts seem endemic to our energy “transitions.”

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  188. Hmmm Kit, your bullet point list of Bush plans seems at odds with my memory of NREL defunding and then refunding.

    Didn’t a variety of alt-energy programs get cut in the first half of the Bush administration, only to be hastily restarted?

    Fits and starts seem endemic to our energy “transitions.”

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  189. Hmmm Kit, your bullet point list of Bush plans seems at odds with my memory of NREL defunding and then refunding.

    Didn’t a variety of alt-energy programs get cut in the first half of the Bush administration, only to be hastily restarted?

    Fits and starts seem endemic to our energy “transitions.”

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  190. Hmmm Kit, your bullet point list of Bush plans seems at odds with my memory of NREL defunding and then refunding.

    Didn’t a variety of alt-energy programs get cut in the first half of the Bush administration, only to be hastily restarted?

    Fits and starts seem endemic to our energy “transitions.”

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  191. Hmmm Kit, your bullet point list of Bush plans seems at odds with my memory of NREL defunding and then refunding.

    Didn’t a variety of alt-energy programs get cut in the first half of the Bush administration, only to be hastily restarted?

    Fits and starts seem endemic to our energy “transitions.”

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  192. Hmmm Kit, your bullet point list of Bush plans seems at odds with my memory of NREL defunding and then refunding.Didn’t a variety of alt-energy programs get cut in the first half of the Bush administration, only to be hastily restarted?Fits and starts seem endemic to our energy “transitions.”- odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  193. “I haven’t heard any Republican saying we can/should drill our way to independence. What I have heard is that drilling needs to be part of the solution.”

    That’s because they were careful in their phasing.

    Q: What’s the answer to high gas prices?
    A: We must open up US drilling

    There. They didn’t say it, and that might even have been part of a balance multi-source energy plan, but the didn’t make that clear.

    That allowed the busy Republican listener, without time or inclination to study this to take away the idea that if we’d drill we’d have no problem.

    That answer and simplified idea played incredibly well with the base.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  194. “I haven’t heard any Republican saying we can/should drill our way to independence. What I have heard is that drilling needs to be part of the solution.”

    That’s because they were careful in their phasing.

    Q: What’s the answer to high gas prices?
    A: We must open up US drilling

    There. They didn’t say it, and that might even have been part of a balance multi-source energy plan, but the didn’t make that clear.

    That allowed the busy Republican listener, without time or inclination to study this to take away the idea that if we’d drill we’d have no problem.

    That answer and simplified idea played incredibly well with the base.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  195. “I haven’t heard any Republican saying we can/should drill our way to independence. What I have heard is that drilling needs to be part of the solution.”

    That’s because they were careful in their phasing.

    Q: What’s the answer to high gas prices?
    A: We must open up US drilling

    There. They didn’t say it, and that might even have been part of a balance multi-source energy plan, but the didn’t make that clear.

    That allowed the busy Republican listener, without time or inclination to study this to take away the idea that if we’d drill we’d have no problem.

    That answer and simplified idea played incredibly well with the base.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  196. “I haven’t heard any Republican saying we can/should drill our way to independence. What I have heard is that drilling needs to be part of the solution.”

    That’s because they were careful in their phasing.

    Q: What’s the answer to high gas prices?
    A: We must open up US drilling

    There. They didn’t say it, and that might even have been part of a balance multi-source energy plan, but the didn’t make that clear.

    That allowed the busy Republican listener, without time or inclination to study this to take away the idea that if we’d drill we’d have no problem.

    That answer and simplified idea played incredibly well with the base.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  197. “I haven’t heard any Republican saying we can/should drill our way to independence. What I have heard is that drilling needs to be part of the solution.”

    That’s because they were careful in their phasing.

    Q: What’s the answer to high gas prices?
    A: We must open up US drilling

    There. They didn’t say it, and that might even have been part of a balance multi-source energy plan, but the didn’t make that clear.

    That allowed the busy Republican listener, without time or inclination to study this to take away the idea that if we’d drill we’d have no problem.

    That answer and simplified idea played incredibly well with the base.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  198. “I haven’t heard any Republican saying we can/should drill our way to independence. What I have heard is that drilling needs to be part of the solution.”

    That’s because they were careful in their phasing.

    Q: What’s the answer to high gas prices?
    A: We must open up US drilling

    There. They didn’t say it, and that might even have been part of a balance multi-source energy plan, but the didn’t make that clear.

    That allowed the busy Republican listener, without time or inclination to study this to take away the idea that if we’d drill we’d have no problem.

    That answer and simplified idea played incredibly well with the base.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  199. “I haven’t heard any Republican saying we can/should drill our way to independence. What I have heard is that drilling needs to be part of the solution.”

    That’s because they were careful in their phasing.

    Q: What’s the answer to high gas prices?
    A: We must open up US drilling

    There. They didn’t say it, and that might even have been part of a balance multi-source energy plan, but the didn’t make that clear.

    That allowed the busy Republican listener, without time or inclination to study this to take away the idea that if we’d drill we’d have no problem.

    That answer and simplified idea played incredibly well with the base.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  200. “I haven’t heard any Republican saying we can/should drill our way to independence. What I have heard is that drilling needs to be part of the solution.”That’s because they were careful in their phasing.Q: What’s the answer to high gas prices?A: We must open up US drillingThere. They didn’t say it, and that might even have been part of a balance multi-source energy plan, but the didn’t make that clear.That allowed the busy Republican listener, without time or inclination to study this to take away the idea that if we’d drill we’d have no problem.That answer and simplified idea played incredibly well with the base.- odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  201. Assuming that come January Obama will be in the White House, and the senate and congress will be Democrat, how do you expect that they will open up to drilling in areas that they have opposed in the past? Will funding for new energy alternatives come from increased taxes on oil companies? In the end, we need to consume less gasoline, and this will not be done while gas prices are at current levels.

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  202. Assuming that come January Obama will be in the White House, and the senate and congress will be Democrat, how do you expect that they will open up to drilling in areas that they have opposed in the past? Will funding for new energy alternatives come from increased taxes on oil companies? In the end, we need to consume less gasoline, and this will not be done while gas prices are at current levels.

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  203. Assuming that come January Obama will be in the White House, and the senate and congress will be Democrat, how do you expect that they will open up to drilling in areas that they have opposed in the past? Will funding for new energy alternatives come from increased taxes on oil companies? In the end, we need to consume less gasoline, and this will not be done while gas prices are at current levels.

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  204. Assuming that come January Obama will be in the White House, and the senate and congress will be Democrat, how do you expect that they will open up to drilling in areas that they have opposed in the past? Will funding for new energy alternatives come from increased taxes on oil companies? In the end, we need to consume less gasoline, and this will not be done while gas prices are at current levels.

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  205. Assuming that come January Obama will be in the White House, and the senate and congress will be Democrat, how do you expect that they will open up to drilling in areas that they have opposed in the past? Will funding for new energy alternatives come from increased taxes on oil companies? In the end, we need to consume less gasoline, and this will not be done while gas prices are at current levels.

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  206. Assuming that come January Obama will be in the White House, and the senate and congress will be Democrat, how do you expect that they will open up to drilling in areas that they have opposed in the past? Will funding for new energy alternatives come from increased taxes on oil companies? In the end, we need to consume less gasoline, and this will not be done while gas prices are at current levels.

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  207. Assuming that come January Obama will be in the White House, and the senate and congress will be Democrat, how do you expect that they will open up to drilling in areas that they have opposed in the past? Will funding for new energy alternatives come from increased taxes on oil companies? In the end, we need to consume less gasoline, and this will not be done while gas prices are at current levels.

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  208. Assuming that come January Obama will be in the White House, and the senate and congress will be Democrat, how do you expect that they will open up to drilling in areas that they have opposed in the past? Will funding for new energy alternatives come from increased taxes on oil companies? In the end, we need to consume less gasoline, and this will not be done while gas prices are at current levels.

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  209. How many Americans know Bush is an ecogeek,or that Al Gore is an energy glutton? Not many. The almighty propaganda machine has conditioned us to believe exactly the opposite. Bush’s house has a geothermal heat pump and an underground cistern for collecting rain and wastewater. He uses about 25% of the energy an average family does. Gore’s mansion uses 20X more energy than the average family. It’s not something we’ll see in the popular media though. They have certain myths to nurture.

    Comment by Maury | November 2, 2008

  210. How many Americans know Bush is an ecogeek,or that Al Gore is an energy glutton? Not many. The almighty propaganda machine has conditioned us to believe exactly the opposite. Bush’s house has a geothermal heat pump and an underground cistern for collecting rain and wastewater. He uses about 25% of the energy an average family does. Gore’s mansion uses 20X more energy than the average family. It’s not something we’ll see in the popular media though. They have certain myths to nurture.

    Comment by Maury | November 2, 2008

  211. How many Americans know Bush is an ecogeek,or that Al Gore is an energy glutton? Not many. The almighty propaganda machine has conditioned us to believe exactly the opposite. Bush’s house has a geothermal heat pump and an underground cistern for collecting rain and wastewater. He uses about 25% of the energy an average family does. Gore’s mansion uses 20X more energy than the average family. It’s not something we’ll see in the popular media though. They have certain myths to nurture.

    Comment by Maury | November 2, 2008

  212. How many Americans know Bush is an ecogeek,or that Al Gore is an energy glutton? Not many. The almighty propaganda machine has conditioned us to believe exactly the opposite. Bush’s house has a geothermal heat pump and an underground cistern for collecting rain and wastewater. He uses about 25% of the energy an average family does. Gore’s mansion uses 20X more energy than the average family. It’s not something we’ll see in the popular media though. They have certain myths to nurture.

    Comment by Maury | November 2, 2008

  213. How many Americans know Bush is an ecogeek,or that Al Gore is an energy glutton? Not many. The almighty propaganda machine has conditioned us to believe exactly the opposite. Bush’s house has a geothermal heat pump and an underground cistern for collecting rain and wastewater. He uses about 25% of the energy an average family does. Gore’s mansion uses 20X more energy than the average family. It’s not something we’ll see in the popular media though. They have certain myths to nurture.

    Comment by Maury | November 2, 2008

  214. How many Americans know Bush is an ecogeek,or that Al Gore is an energy glutton? Not many. The almighty propaganda machine has conditioned us to believe exactly the opposite. Bush’s house has a geothermal heat pump and an underground cistern for collecting rain and wastewater. He uses about 25% of the energy an average family does. Gore’s mansion uses 20X more energy than the average family. It’s not something we’ll see in the popular media though. They have certain myths to nurture.

    Comment by Maury | November 2, 2008

  215. How many Americans know Bush is an ecogeek,or that Al Gore is an energy glutton? Not many. The almighty propaganda machine has conditioned us to believe exactly the opposite. Bush’s house has a geothermal heat pump and an underground cistern for collecting rain and wastewater. He uses about 25% of the energy an average family does. Gore’s mansion uses 20X more energy than the average family. It’s not something we’ll see in the popular media though. They have certain myths to nurture.

    Comment by Maury | November 2, 2008

  216. How many Americans know Bush is an ecogeek,or that Al Gore is an energy glutton? Not many. The almighty propaganda machine has conditioned us to believe exactly the opposite. Bush’s house has a geothermal heat pump and an underground cistern for collecting rain and wastewater. He uses about 25% of the energy an average family does. Gore’s mansion uses 20X more energy than the average family. It’s not something we’ll see in the popular media though. They have certain myths to nurture.

    Comment by Maury | November 2, 2008

  217. Even if that was a complete history Maury, I wonder how much it would matter.

    If a President lived like a saint in a cave, but tried to sneak more mountain-top removal into the closing days of his administration would you love him?

    White House Changing Rules to Favor Mountaintop Removal

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  218. Even if that was a complete history Maury, I wonder how much it would matter.

    If a President lived like a saint in a cave, but tried to sneak more mountain-top removal into the closing days of his administration would you love him?

    White House Changing Rules to Favor Mountaintop Removal

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  219. Even if that was a complete history Maury, I wonder how much it would matter.

    If a President lived like a saint in a cave, but tried to sneak more mountain-top removal into the closing days of his administration would you love him?

    White House Changing Rules to Favor Mountaintop Removal

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  220. Even if that was a complete history Maury, I wonder how much it would matter.

    If a President lived like a saint in a cave, but tried to sneak more mountain-top removal into the closing days of his administration would you love him?

    White House Changing Rules to Favor Mountaintop Removal

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  221. Even if that was a complete history Maury, I wonder how much it would matter.

    If a President lived like a saint in a cave, but tried to sneak more mountain-top removal into the closing days of his administration would you love him?

    White House Changing Rules to Favor Mountaintop Removal

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  222. Even if that was a complete history Maury, I wonder how much it would matter.

    If a President lived like a saint in a cave, but tried to sneak more mountain-top removal into the closing days of his administration would you love him?

    White House Changing Rules to Favor Mountaintop Removal

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  223. Even if that was a complete history Maury, I wonder how much it would matter.

    If a President lived like a saint in a cave, but tried to sneak more mountain-top removal into the closing days of his administration would you love him?

    White House Changing Rules to Favor Mountaintop Removal

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  224. Even if that was a complete history Maury, I wonder how much it would matter.If a President lived like a saint in a cave, but tried to sneak more mountain-top removal into the closing days of his administration would you love him?White House Changing Rules to Favor Mountaintop Removal- odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  225. I read the article Odograph. Did you catch this part? “This rule has been routinely ignored by mining companies, because it would be impossible to practice mountaintop removal otherwise.” Yeah,let’s not change that rule. The country with the world’s largest coal reserves should just import what it needs,right? Let someone else move THEIR pesky mountains.

    Comment by Maury | November 2, 2008

  226. I read the article Odograph. Did you catch this part? “This rule has been routinely ignored by mining companies, because it would be impossible to practice mountaintop removal otherwise.” Yeah,let’s not change that rule. The country with the world’s largest coal reserves should just import what it needs,right? Let someone else move THEIR pesky mountains.

    Comment by Maury | November 2, 2008

  227. I read the article Odograph. Did you catch this part? “This rule has been routinely ignored by mining companies, because it would be impossible to practice mountaintop removal otherwise.” Yeah,let’s not change that rule. The country with the world’s largest coal reserves should just import what it needs,right? Let someone else move THEIR pesky mountains.

    Comment by Maury | November 2, 2008

  228. I read the article Odograph. Did you catch this part? “This rule has been routinely ignored by mining companies, because it would be impossible to practice mountaintop removal otherwise.” Yeah,let’s not change that rule. The country with the world’s largest coal reserves should just import what it needs,right? Let someone else move THEIR pesky mountains.

    Comment by Maury | November 2, 2008

  229. I read the article Odograph. Did you catch this part? “This rule has been routinely ignored by mining companies, because it would be impossible to practice mountaintop removal otherwise.” Yeah,let’s not change that rule. The country with the world’s largest coal reserves should just import what it needs,right? Let someone else move THEIR pesky mountains.

    Comment by Maury | November 2, 2008

  230. I read the article Odograph. Did you catch this part? “This rule has been routinely ignored by mining companies, because it would be impossible to practice mountaintop removal otherwise.” Yeah,let’s not change that rule. The country with the world’s largest coal reserves should just import what it needs,right? Let someone else move THEIR pesky mountains.

    Comment by Maury | November 2, 2008

  231. I read the article Odograph. Did you catch this part? “This rule has been routinely ignored by mining companies, because it would be impossible to practice mountaintop removal otherwise.” Yeah,let’s not change that rule. The country with the world’s largest coal reserves should just import what it needs,right? Let someone else move THEIR pesky mountains.

    Comment by Maury | November 2, 2008

  232. I read the article Odograph. Did you catch this part? “This rule has been routinely ignored by mining companies, because it would be impossible to practice mountaintop removal otherwise.” Yeah,let’s not change that rule. The country with the world’s largest coal reserves should just import what it needs,right? Let someone else move THEIR pesky mountains.

    Comment by Maury | November 2, 2008

  233. Of course I get that. There are certain coal reserves that can only be accessed by destroying rivers and towns.

    In the meantime, 90% of our electrical energy could be supply by solar thermal power plants.

    But hey! If Bush has solar panels at his ranch that makes the selenium etc. poisoning ok!

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  234. Of course I get that. There are certain coal reserves that can only be accessed by destroying rivers and towns.

    In the meantime, 90% of our electrical energy could be supply by solar thermal power plants.

    But hey! If Bush has solar panels at his ranch that makes the selenium etc. poisoning ok!

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  235. Of course I get that. There are certain coal reserves that can only be accessed by destroying rivers and towns.

    In the meantime, 90% of our electrical energy could be supply by solar thermal power plants.

    But hey! If Bush has solar panels at his ranch that makes the selenium etc. poisoning ok!

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  236. Of course I get that. There are certain coal reserves that can only be accessed by destroying rivers and towns.

    In the meantime, 90% of our electrical energy could be supply by solar thermal power plants.

    But hey! If Bush has solar panels at his ranch that makes the selenium etc. poisoning ok!

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  237. Of course I get that. There are certain coal reserves that can only be accessed by destroying rivers and towns.

    In the meantime, 90% of our electrical energy could be supply by solar thermal power plants.

    But hey! If Bush has solar panels at his ranch that makes the selenium etc. poisoning ok!

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  238. Of course I get that. There are certain coal reserves that can only be accessed by destroying rivers and towns.

    In the meantime, 90% of our electrical energy could be supply by solar thermal power plants.

    But hey! If Bush has solar panels at his ranch that makes the selenium etc. poisoning ok!

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  239. Of course I get that. There are certain coal reserves that can only be accessed by destroying rivers and towns.

    In the meantime, 90% of our electrical energy could be supply by solar thermal power plants.

    But hey! If Bush has solar panels at his ranch that makes the selenium etc. poisoning ok!

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  240. Of course I get that. There are certain coal reserves that can only be accessed by destroying rivers and towns.In the meantime, 90% of our electrical energy could be supply by solar thermal power plants.But hey! If Bush has solar panels at his ranch that makes the selenium etc. poisoning ok!- odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  241. Can anyone tell me why lower prices at the pump is beneficial to developing alternative modes of energy? By increasing gasoline prices we would naturally solve the following problems :

    1. Congestion.
    2. Pollution
    3. More efficient driving
    4. More efficient Engines.
    5. Encourages Alternatives

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  242. Can anyone tell me why lower prices at the pump is beneficial to developing alternative modes of energy? By increasing gasoline prices we would naturally solve the following problems :

    1. Congestion.
    2. Pollution
    3. More efficient driving
    4. More efficient Engines.
    5. Encourages Alternatives

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  243. Can anyone tell me why lower prices at the pump is beneficial to developing alternative modes of energy? By increasing gasoline prices we would naturally solve the following problems :

    1. Congestion.
    2. Pollution
    3. More efficient driving
    4. More efficient Engines.
    5. Encourages Alternatives

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  244. Can anyone tell me why lower prices at the pump is beneficial to developing alternative modes of energy? By increasing gasoline prices we would naturally solve the following problems :

    1. Congestion.
    2. Pollution
    3. More efficient driving
    4. More efficient Engines.
    5. Encourages Alternatives

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  245. Can anyone tell me why lower prices at the pump is beneficial to developing alternative modes of energy? By increasing gasoline prices we would naturally solve the following problems :

    1. Congestion.
    2. Pollution
    3. More efficient driving
    4. More efficient Engines.
    5. Encourages Alternatives

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  246. Can anyone tell me why lower prices at the pump is beneficial to developing alternative modes of energy? By increasing gasoline prices we would naturally solve the following problems :

    1. Congestion.
    2. Pollution
    3. More efficient driving
    4. More efficient Engines.
    5. Encourages Alternatives

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  247. Can anyone tell me why lower prices at the pump is beneficial to developing alternative modes of energy? By increasing gasoline prices we would naturally solve the following problems :

    1. Congestion.
    2. Pollution
    3. More efficient driving
    4. More efficient Engines.
    5. Encourages Alternatives

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  248. Can anyone tell me why lower prices at the pump is beneficial to developing alternative modes of energy? By increasing gasoline prices we would naturally solve the following problems :1. Congestion.2. Pollution3. More efficient driving4. More efficient Engines.5. Encourages Alternatives

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  249. “There are certain coal reserves that can only be accessed by destroying rivers and towns.”

    All of the coal is under mountains or between them Odograph. If you can’t mine between them,and can’t remove mountaintop,how in the hell do you get to the coal? If the rule were adhered to,we would have to import coal. Maybe Saudi Arabia should import its oil. Better than risking damage to their environment,right?

    Bush doesn’t get get the credit he deserves for the wind boom underway in the US. But,it was his policies as Governor of Texas that enabled Texas to pass California as the biggest wind producer. I think if someone is going to traipse around the world,preaching to everyone about lowering their energy use,he should walk the talk. Gore hasn’t done that. He’s a bit like the preacher that chases every skirt in town imo.

    Comment by Maury | November 2, 2008

  250. “There are certain coal reserves that can only be accessed by destroying rivers and towns.”

    All of the coal is under mountains or between them Odograph. If you can’t mine between them,and can’t remove mountaintop,how in the hell do you get to the coal? If the rule were adhered to,we would have to import coal. Maybe Saudi Arabia should import its oil. Better than risking damage to their environment,right?

    Bush doesn’t get get the credit he deserves for the wind boom underway in the US. But,it was his policies as Governor of Texas that enabled Texas to pass California as the biggest wind producer. I think if someone is going to traipse around the world,preaching to everyone about lowering their energy use,he should walk the talk. Gore hasn’t done that. He’s a bit like the preacher that chases every skirt in town imo.

    Comment by Maury | November 2, 2008

  251. “There are certain coal reserves that can only be accessed by destroying rivers and towns.”

    All of the coal is under mountains or between them Odograph. If you can’t mine between them,and can’t remove mountaintop,how in the hell do you get to the coal? If the rule were adhered to,we would have to import coal. Maybe Saudi Arabia should import its oil. Better than risking damage to their environment,right?

    Bush doesn’t get get the credit he deserves for the wind boom underway in the US. But,it was his policies as Governor of Texas that enabled Texas to pass California as the biggest wind producer. I think if someone is going to traipse around the world,preaching to everyone about lowering their energy use,he should walk the talk. Gore hasn’t done that. He’s a bit like the preacher that chases every skirt in town imo.

    Comment by Maury | November 2, 2008

  252. “There are certain coal reserves that can only be accessed by destroying rivers and towns.”

    All of the coal is under mountains or between them Odograph. If you can’t mine between them,and can’t remove mountaintop,how in the hell do you get to the coal? If the rule were adhered to,we would have to import coal. Maybe Saudi Arabia should import its oil. Better than risking damage to their environment,right?

    Bush doesn’t get get the credit he deserves for the wind boom underway in the US. But,it was his policies as Governor of Texas that enabled Texas to pass California as the biggest wind producer. I think if someone is going to traipse around the world,preaching to everyone about lowering their energy use,he should walk the talk. Gore hasn’t done that. He’s a bit like the preacher that chases every skirt in town imo.

    Comment by Maury | November 2, 2008

  253. “There are certain coal reserves that can only be accessed by destroying rivers and towns.”

    All of the coal is under mountains or between them Odograph. If you can’t mine between them,and can’t remove mountaintop,how in the hell do you get to the coal? If the rule were adhered to,we would have to import coal. Maybe Saudi Arabia should import its oil. Better than risking damage to their environment,right?

    Bush doesn’t get get the credit he deserves for the wind boom underway in the US. But,it was his policies as Governor of Texas that enabled Texas to pass California as the biggest wind producer. I think if someone is going to traipse around the world,preaching to everyone about lowering their energy use,he should walk the talk. Gore hasn’t done that. He’s a bit like the preacher that chases every skirt in town imo.

    Comment by Maury | November 2, 2008

  254. “There are certain coal reserves that can only be accessed by destroying rivers and towns.”

    All of the coal is under mountains or between them Odograph. If you can’t mine between them,and can’t remove mountaintop,how in the hell do you get to the coal? If the rule were adhered to,we would have to import coal. Maybe Saudi Arabia should import its oil. Better than risking damage to their environment,right?

    Bush doesn’t get get the credit he deserves for the wind boom underway in the US. But,it was his policies as Governor of Texas that enabled Texas to pass California as the biggest wind producer. I think if someone is going to traipse around the world,preaching to everyone about lowering their energy use,he should walk the talk. Gore hasn’t done that. He’s a bit like the preacher that chases every skirt in town imo.

    Comment by Maury | November 2, 2008

  255. “There are certain coal reserves that can only be accessed by destroying rivers and towns.”

    All of the coal is under mountains or between them Odograph. If you can’t mine between them,and can’t remove mountaintop,how in the hell do you get to the coal? If the rule were adhered to,we would have to import coal. Maybe Saudi Arabia should import its oil. Better than risking damage to their environment,right?

    Bush doesn’t get get the credit he deserves for the wind boom underway in the US. But,it was his policies as Governor of Texas that enabled Texas to pass California as the biggest wind producer. I think if someone is going to traipse around the world,preaching to everyone about lowering their energy use,he should walk the talk. Gore hasn’t done that. He’s a bit like the preacher that chases every skirt in town imo.

    Comment by Maury | November 2, 2008

  256. “There are certain coal reserves that can only be accessed by destroying rivers and towns.”All of the coal is under mountains or between them Odograph. If you can’t mine between them,and can’t remove mountaintop,how in the hell do you get to the coal? If the rule were adhered to,we would have to import coal. Maybe Saudi Arabia should import its oil. Better than risking damage to their environment,right?Bush doesn’t get get the credit he deserves for the wind boom underway in the US. But,it was his policies as Governor of Texas that enabled Texas to pass California as the biggest wind producer. I think if someone is going to traipse around the world,preaching to everyone about lowering their energy use,he should walk the talk. Gore hasn’t done that. He’s a bit like the preacher that chases every skirt in town imo.

    Comment by Maury | November 2, 2008

  257. Odograph is the master of trivia.

    Bush has cut funding of many things. Funding was cut bt $250M for promoting new nuclear reactors by 2010. Some in the nuclear cried foul however, with the NRC informed of 30+ COL reactors applications being prepared is it okay to cut funding when the goal has been achieved?

    Get real Odograph, funding has not been cut for renewable energy R&D. If your goal is to actually produce renewable energy, funding for small projects is way up.

    Since I live in coal country, I would rather see a mountains lowered a little, then see windmills installed. Strip mining operations are required to restore after the coal mining done. A hill with trees is still a hill with trees.

    Twenty years ago, I was very anti-coal. Safety and environment issues were my concern. I think the coal industry has come a long way. I would rather see miners operating above ground that 1000 feet below.
    If Democrats do not like big oil, they hate coal and nuclear too. To be fair, I do not think Democrats are a friend of renewable energy either. Democrats embrace the concept but do think you can build a real renewable energy project near where they live unless you have lots of good lawyers.

    Comment by Kit P | November 2, 2008

  258. Odograph is the master of trivia.

    Bush has cut funding of many things. Funding was cut bt $250M for promoting new nuclear reactors by 2010. Some in the nuclear cried foul however, with the NRC informed of 30+ COL reactors applications being prepared is it okay to cut funding when the goal has been achieved?

    Get real Odograph, funding has not been cut for renewable energy R&D. If your goal is to actually produce renewable energy, funding for small projects is way up.

    Since I live in coal country, I would rather see a mountains lowered a little, then see windmills installed. Strip mining operations are required to restore after the coal mining done. A hill with trees is still a hill with trees.

    Twenty years ago, I was very anti-coal. Safety and environment issues were my concern. I think the coal industry has come a long way. I would rather see miners operating above ground that 1000 feet below.
    If Democrats do not like big oil, they hate coal and nuclear too. To be fair, I do not think Democrats are a friend of renewable energy either. Democrats embrace the concept but do think you can build a real renewable energy project near where they live unless you have lots of good lawyers.

    Comment by Kit P | November 2, 2008

  259. Odograph is the master of trivia.

    Bush has cut funding of many things. Funding was cut bt $250M for promoting new nuclear reactors by 2010. Some in the nuclear cried foul however, with the NRC informed of 30+ COL reactors applications being prepared is it okay to cut funding when the goal has been achieved?

    Get real Odograph, funding has not been cut for renewable energy R&D. If your goal is to actually produce renewable energy, funding for small projects is way up.

    Since I live in coal country, I would rather see a mountains lowered a little, then see windmills installed. Strip mining operations are required to restore after the coal mining done. A hill with trees is still a hill with trees.

    Twenty years ago, I was very anti-coal. Safety and environment issues were my concern. I think the coal industry has come a long way. I would rather see miners operating above ground that 1000 feet below.
    If Democrats do not like big oil, they hate coal and nuclear too. To be fair, I do not think Democrats are a friend of renewable energy either. Democrats embrace the concept but do think you can build a real renewable energy project near where they live unless you have lots of good lawyers.

    Comment by Kit P | November 2, 2008

  260. Odograph is the master of trivia.

    Bush has cut funding of many things. Funding was cut bt $250M for promoting new nuclear reactors by 2010. Some in the nuclear cried foul however, with the NRC informed of 30+ COL reactors applications being prepared is it okay to cut funding when the goal has been achieved?

    Get real Odograph, funding has not been cut for renewable energy R&D. If your goal is to actually produce renewable energy, funding for small projects is way up.

    Since I live in coal country, I would rather see a mountains lowered a little, then see windmills installed. Strip mining operations are required to restore after the coal mining done. A hill with trees is still a hill with trees.

    Twenty years ago, I was very anti-coal. Safety and environment issues were my concern. I think the coal industry has come a long way. I would rather see miners operating above ground that 1000 feet below.
    If Democrats do not like big oil, they hate coal and nuclear too. To be fair, I do not think Democrats are a friend of renewable energy either. Democrats embrace the concept but do think you can build a real renewable energy project near where they live unless you have lots of good lawyers.

    Comment by Kit P | November 2, 2008

  261. Odograph is the master of trivia.

    Bush has cut funding of many things. Funding was cut bt $250M for promoting new nuclear reactors by 2010. Some in the nuclear cried foul however, with the NRC informed of 30+ COL reactors applications being prepared is it okay to cut funding when the goal has been achieved?

    Get real Odograph, funding has not been cut for renewable energy R&D. If your goal is to actually produce renewable energy, funding for small projects is way up.

    Since I live in coal country, I would rather see a mountains lowered a little, then see windmills installed. Strip mining operations are required to restore after the coal mining done. A hill with trees is still a hill with trees.

    Twenty years ago, I was very anti-coal. Safety and environment issues were my concern. I think the coal industry has come a long way. I would rather see miners operating above ground that 1000 feet below.
    If Democrats do not like big oil, they hate coal and nuclear too. To be fair, I do not think Democrats are a friend of renewable energy either. Democrats embrace the concept but do think you can build a real renewable energy project near where they live unless you have lots of good lawyers.

    Comment by Kit P | November 2, 2008

  262. Odograph is the master of trivia.

    Bush has cut funding of many things. Funding was cut bt $250M for promoting new nuclear reactors by 2010. Some in the nuclear cried foul however, with the NRC informed of 30+ COL reactors applications being prepared is it okay to cut funding when the goal has been achieved?

    Get real Odograph, funding has not been cut for renewable energy R&D. If your goal is to actually produce renewable energy, funding for small projects is way up.

    Since I live in coal country, I would rather see a mountains lowered a little, then see windmills installed. Strip mining operations are required to restore after the coal mining done. A hill with trees is still a hill with trees.

    Twenty years ago, I was very anti-coal. Safety and environment issues were my concern. I think the coal industry has come a long way. I would rather see miners operating above ground that 1000 feet below.
    If Democrats do not like big oil, they hate coal and nuclear too. To be fair, I do not think Democrats are a friend of renewable energy either. Democrats embrace the concept but do think you can build a real renewable energy project near where they live unless you have lots of good lawyers.

    Comment by Kit P | November 2, 2008

  263. Odograph is the master of trivia.

    Bush has cut funding of many things. Funding was cut bt $250M for promoting new nuclear reactors by 2010. Some in the nuclear cried foul however, with the NRC informed of 30+ COL reactors applications being prepared is it okay to cut funding when the goal has been achieved?

    Get real Odograph, funding has not been cut for renewable energy R&D. If your goal is to actually produce renewable energy, funding for small projects is way up.

    Since I live in coal country, I would rather see a mountains lowered a little, then see windmills installed. Strip mining operations are required to restore after the coal mining done. A hill with trees is still a hill with trees.

    Twenty years ago, I was very anti-coal. Safety and environment issues were my concern. I think the coal industry has come a long way. I would rather see miners operating above ground that 1000 feet below.
    If Democrats do not like big oil, they hate coal and nuclear too. To be fair, I do not think Democrats are a friend of renewable energy either. Democrats embrace the concept but do think you can build a real renewable energy project near where they live unless you have lots of good lawyers.

    Comment by Kit P | November 2, 2008

  264. Odograph is the master of trivia. Bush has cut funding of many things. Funding was cut bt $250M for promoting new nuclear reactors by 2010. Some in the nuclear cried foul however, with the NRC informed of 30+ COL reactors applications being prepared is it okay to cut funding when the goal has been achieved? Get real Odograph, funding has not been cut for renewable energy R&D. If your goal is to actually produce renewable energy, funding for small projects is way up. Since I live in coal country, I would rather see a mountains lowered a little, then see windmills installed. Strip mining operations are required to restore after the coal mining done. A hill with trees is still a hill with trees. Twenty years ago, I was very anti-coal. Safety and environment issues were my concern. I think the coal industry has come a long way. I would rather see miners operating above ground that 1000 feet below.If Democrats do not like big oil, they hate coal and nuclear too. To be fair, I do not think Democrats are a friend of renewable energy either. Democrats embrace the concept but do think you can build a real renewable energy project near where they live unless you have lots of good lawyers.

    Comment by Kit P | November 2, 2008

  265. @King

    Thanks for the suggestion to go to the recommendations – I had an intent to look for something equivalent.

    King,King,King a got that about the Dems. I agree that’s what happened.

    I want more transparency in the operations of government. So, would your preference been meeting with open or closed doors ?

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  266. @King

    Thanks for the suggestion to go to the recommendations – I had an intent to look for something equivalent.

    King,King,King a got that about the Dems. I agree that’s what happened.

    I want more transparency in the operations of government. So, would your preference been meeting with open or closed doors ?

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  267. @King

    Thanks for the suggestion to go to the recommendations – I had an intent to look for something equivalent.

    King,King,King a got that about the Dems. I agree that’s what happened.

    I want more transparency in the operations of government. So, would your preference been meeting with open or closed doors ?

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  268. @King

    Thanks for the suggestion to go to the recommendations – I had an intent to look for something equivalent.

    King,King,King a got that about the Dems. I agree that’s what happened.

    I want more transparency in the operations of government. So, would your preference been meeting with open or closed doors ?

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  269. @King

    Thanks for the suggestion to go to the recommendations – I had an intent to look for something equivalent.

    King,King,King a got that about the Dems. I agree that’s what happened.

    I want more transparency in the operations of government. So, would your preference been meeting with open or closed doors ?

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  270. @King

    Thanks for the suggestion to go to the recommendations – I had an intent to look for something equivalent.

    King,King,King a got that about the Dems. I agree that’s what happened.

    I want more transparency in the operations of government. So, would your preference been meeting with open or closed doors ?

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  271. @King

    Thanks for the suggestion to go to the recommendations – I had an intent to look for something equivalent.

    King,King,King a got that about the Dems. I agree that’s what happened.

    I want more transparency in the operations of government. So, would your preference been meeting with open or closed doors ?

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  272. @KingThanks for the suggestion to go to the recommendations – I had an intent to look for something equivalent.King,King,King a got that about the Dems. I agree that’s what happened. I want more transparency in the operations of government. So, would your preference been meeting with open or closed doors ? RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  273. Robert, I am curious of your opinion on this:

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/11/02/hidden-audio-obama-tells-sf-chronicle-he-will-bankrupt-coal-industry

    Comment by mh497 | November 2, 2008

  274. @Kit

    which state is 100% public power?

    Nebraska is the only state in the nation that uses 100 percent public power.

    Source

    I’m a fiscal conservative and after living here 3 decades there’s no doubt in my mind it’s the social conservative mindset that drives this, AKA CHEAP !

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  275. Robert, I am curious of your opinion on this:

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/11/02/hidden-audio-obama-tells-sf-chronicle-he-will-bankrupt-coal-industry

    Comment by mh497 | November 2, 2008

  276. @Kit

    which state is 100% public power?

    Nebraska is the only state in the nation that uses 100 percent public power.

    Source

    I’m a fiscal conservative and after living here 3 decades there’s no doubt in my mind it’s the social conservative mindset that drives this, AKA CHEAP !

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  277. Robert, I am curious of your opinion on this:

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/11/02/hidden-audio-obama-tells-sf-chronicle-he-will-bankrupt-coal-industry

    Comment by mh497 | November 2, 2008

  278. @Kit

    which state is 100% public power?

    Nebraska is the only state in the nation that uses 100 percent public power.

    Source

    I’m a fiscal conservative and after living here 3 decades there’s no doubt in my mind it’s the social conservative mindset that drives this, AKA CHEAP !

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  279. Robert, I am curious of your opinion on this:

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/11/02/hidden-audio-obama-tells-sf-chronicle-he-will-bankrupt-coal-industry

    Comment by mh497 | November 2, 2008

  280. @Kit

    which state is 100% public power?

    Nebraska is the only state in the nation that uses 100 percent public power.

    Source

    I’m a fiscal conservative and after living here 3 decades there’s no doubt in my mind it’s the social conservative mindset that drives this, AKA CHEAP !

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  281. Robert, I am curious of your opinion on this:

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/11/02/hidden-audio-obama-tells-sf-chronicle-he-will-bankrupt-coal-industry

    Comment by mh497 | November 2, 2008

  282. @Kit

    which state is 100% public power?

    Nebraska is the only state in the nation that uses 100 percent public power.

    Source

    I’m a fiscal conservative and after living here 3 decades there’s no doubt in my mind it’s the social conservative mindset that drives this, AKA CHEAP !

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  283. Robert, I am curious of your opinion on this:

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/11/02/hidden-audio-obama-tells-sf-chronicle-he-will-bankrupt-coal-industry

    Comment by mh497 | November 2, 2008

  284. @Kit

    which state is 100% public power?

    Nebraska is the only state in the nation that uses 100 percent public power.

    Source

    I’m a fiscal conservative and after living here 3 decades there’s no doubt in my mind it’s the social conservative mindset that drives this, AKA CHEAP !

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  285. Robert, I am curious of your opinion on this:

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/11/02/hidden-audio-obama-tells-sf-chronicle-he-will-bankrupt-coal-industry

    Comment by mh497 | November 2, 2008

  286. @Kit

    which state is 100% public power?

    Nebraska is the only state in the nation that uses 100 percent public power.

    Source

    I’m a fiscal conservative and after living here 3 decades there’s no doubt in my mind it’s the social conservative mindset that drives this, AKA CHEAP !

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  287. Robert, I am curious of your opinion on this:http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/11/02/hidden-audio-obama-tells-sf-chronicle-he-will-bankrupt-coal-industry

    Comment by mh497 | November 2, 2008

  288. @Kitwhich state is 100% public power?Nebraska is the only state in the nation that uses 100 percent public power.SourceI’m a fiscal conservative and after living here 3 decades there’s no doubt in my mind it’s the social conservative mindset that drives this, AKA CHEAP !RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  289. Sorry, link clipped.

    See here:

    http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdi4onAQBWQ

    Comment by mh497 | November 2, 2008

  290. Sorry, link clipped.

    See here:

    http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdi4onAQBWQ

    Comment by mh497 | November 2, 2008

  291. Sorry, link clipped.

    See here:

    http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdi4onAQBWQ

    Comment by mh497 | November 2, 2008

  292. Sorry, link clipped.

    See here:

    http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdi4onAQBWQ

    Comment by mh497 | November 2, 2008

  293. Sorry, link clipped.

    See here:

    http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdi4onAQBWQ

    Comment by mh497 | November 2, 2008

  294. Sorry, link clipped.

    See here:

    http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdi4onAQBWQ

    Comment by mh497 | November 2, 2008

  295. Sorry, link clipped.

    See here:

    http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdi4onAQBWQ

    Comment by mh497 | November 2, 2008

  296. Sorry, link clipped.See here:http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdi4onAQBWQ

    Comment by mh497 | November 2, 2008

  297. I think those are pretty weird and diffuse responses. I hear arguments that feel good to you, rather than ones that have any strong basis in fact.

    For Maury, all coal is under something, so mountain top removal is justified.

    For Kip, if it feels like Bush increased alternative energy funding from the start then it must be true, even if it isn’t. (Graphic from this article, which shows, as I said, an increase after our recent energy crisis.)

    All in all, Truthiness is alive and well on the American right. That is, facts don’t matter, your gut does.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  298. I think those are pretty weird and diffuse responses. I hear arguments that feel good to you, rather than ones that have any strong basis in fact.

    For Maury, all coal is under something, so mountain top removal is justified.

    For Kip, if it feels like Bush increased alternative energy funding from the start then it must be true, even if it isn’t. (Graphic from this article, which shows, as I said, an increase after our recent energy crisis.)

    All in all, Truthiness is alive and well on the American right. That is, facts don’t matter, your gut does.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  299. I think those are pretty weird and diffuse responses. I hear arguments that feel good to you, rather than ones that have any strong basis in fact.

    For Maury, all coal is under something, so mountain top removal is justified.

    For Kip, if it feels like Bush increased alternative energy funding from the start then it must be true, even if it isn’t. (Graphic from this article, which shows, as I said, an increase after our recent energy crisis.)

    All in all, Truthiness is alive and well on the American right. That is, facts don’t matter, your gut does.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  300. I think those are pretty weird and diffuse responses. I hear arguments that feel good to you, rather than ones that have any strong basis in fact.

    For Maury, all coal is under something, so mountain top removal is justified.

    For Kip, if it feels like Bush increased alternative energy funding from the start then it must be true, even if it isn’t. (Graphic from this article, which shows, as I said, an increase after our recent energy crisis.)

    All in all, Truthiness is alive and well on the American right. That is, facts don’t matter, your gut does.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  301. I think those are pretty weird and diffuse responses. I hear arguments that feel good to you, rather than ones that have any strong basis in fact.

    For Maury, all coal is under something, so mountain top removal is justified.

    For Kip, if it feels like Bush increased alternative energy funding from the start then it must be true, even if it isn’t. (Graphic from this article, which shows, as I said, an increase after our recent energy crisis.)

    All in all, Truthiness is alive and well on the American right. That is, facts don’t matter, your gut does.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  302. I think those are pretty weird and diffuse responses. I hear arguments that feel good to you, rather than ones that have any strong basis in fact.

    For Maury, all coal is under something, so mountain top removal is justified.

    For Kip, if it feels like Bush increased alternative energy funding from the start then it must be true, even if it isn’t. (Graphic from this article, which shows, as I said, an increase after our recent energy crisis.)

    All in all, Truthiness is alive and well on the American right. That is, facts don’t matter, your gut does.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  303. I think those are pretty weird and diffuse responses. I hear arguments that feel good to you, rather than ones that have any strong basis in fact.

    For Maury, all coal is under something, so mountain top removal is justified.

    For Kip, if it feels like Bush increased alternative energy funding from the start then it must be true, even if it isn’t. (Graphic from this article, which shows, as I said, an increase after our recent energy crisis.)

    All in all, Truthiness is alive and well on the American right. That is, facts don’t matter, your gut does.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  304. I think those are pretty weird and diffuse responses. I hear arguments that feel good to you, rather than ones that have any strong basis in fact.For Maury, all coal is under something, so mountain top removal is justified.For Kip, if it feels like Bush increased alternative energy funding from the start then it must be true, even if it isn’t. (Graphic from this article, which shows, as I said, an increase after our recent energy crisis.)All in all, Truthiness is alive and well on the American right. That is, facts don’t matter, your gut does.- odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  305. BTW, I expected a little more engagement on the 90% of our power from solar thing.

    I don’t know that the claim is true, but IF coal now requires that streams and fishing (you guys fish?) be ruined, should we really just endorse that coal in a knee-jerk way?

    Or should we find out if we could use solar and still go fishing?

    Extra Credit: What is Trout Unlimited’s position on mountaintop removal?

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  306. BTW, I expected a little more engagement on the 90% of our power from solar thing.

    I don’t know that the claim is true, but IF coal now requires that streams and fishing (you guys fish?) be ruined, should we really just endorse that coal in a knee-jerk way?

    Or should we find out if we could use solar and still go fishing?

    Extra Credit: What is Trout Unlimited’s position on mountaintop removal?

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  307. BTW, I expected a little more engagement on the 90% of our power from solar thing.

    I don’t know that the claim is true, but IF coal now requires that streams and fishing (you guys fish?) be ruined, should we really just endorse that coal in a knee-jerk way?

    Or should we find out if we could use solar and still go fishing?

    Extra Credit: What is Trout Unlimited’s position on mountaintop removal?

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  308. BTW, I expected a little more engagement on the 90% of our power from solar thing.

    I don’t know that the claim is true, but IF coal now requires that streams and fishing (you guys fish?) be ruined, should we really just endorse that coal in a knee-jerk way?

    Or should we find out if we could use solar and still go fishing?

    Extra Credit: What is Trout Unlimited’s position on mountaintop removal?

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  309. BTW, I expected a little more engagement on the 90% of our power from solar thing.

    I don’t know that the claim is true, but IF coal now requires that streams and fishing (you guys fish?) be ruined, should we really just endorse that coal in a knee-jerk way?

    Or should we find out if we could use solar and still go fishing?

    Extra Credit: What is Trout Unlimited’s position on mountaintop removal?

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  310. BTW, I expected a little more engagement on the 90% of our power from solar thing.

    I don’t know that the claim is true, but IF coal now requires that streams and fishing (you guys fish?) be ruined, should we really just endorse that coal in a knee-jerk way?

    Or should we find out if we could use solar and still go fishing?

    Extra Credit: What is Trout Unlimited’s position on mountaintop removal?

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  311. BTW, I expected a little more engagement on the 90% of our power from solar thing.

    I don’t know that the claim is true, but IF coal now requires that streams and fishing (you guys fish?) be ruined, should we really just endorse that coal in a knee-jerk way?

    Or should we find out if we could use solar and still go fishing?

    Extra Credit: What is Trout Unlimited’s position on mountaintop removal?

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  312. BTW, I expected a little more engagement on the 90% of our power from solar thing.I don’t know that the claim is true, but IF coal now requires that streams and fishing (you guys fish?) be ruined, should we really just endorse that coal in a knee-jerk way?Or should we find out if we could use solar and still go fishing?Extra Credit: What is Trout Unlimited’s position on mountaintop removal?- odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  313. [quote=”Odograph”]All in all, Truthiness is alive and well on the American right. That is, facts don’t matter, your gut does[/quote]

    I appreciate an empirical approach and a major reason for reading RR.

    Extremists, both left and right, seem to make selective use of empirics.

    I’ve seen many examples at TOD that indicate what a can of worms an dialog/argument can become, when someone with an ideology for an agenda tries to use empirics.

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  314. [quote=”Odograph”]All in all, Truthiness is alive and well on the American right. That is, facts don’t matter, your gut does[/quote]

    I appreciate an empirical approach and a major reason for reading RR.

    Extremists, both left and right, seem to make selective use of empirics.

    I’ve seen many examples at TOD that indicate what a can of worms an dialog/argument can become, when someone with an ideology for an agenda tries to use empirics.

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  315. [quote=”Odograph”]All in all, Truthiness is alive and well on the American right. That is, facts don’t matter, your gut does[/quote]

    I appreciate an empirical approach and a major reason for reading RR.

    Extremists, both left and right, seem to make selective use of empirics.

    I’ve seen many examples at TOD that indicate what a can of worms an dialog/argument can become, when someone with an ideology for an agenda tries to use empirics.

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  316. [quote=”Odograph”]All in all, Truthiness is alive and well on the American right. That is, facts don’t matter, your gut does[/quote]

    I appreciate an empirical approach and a major reason for reading RR.

    Extremists, both left and right, seem to make selective use of empirics.

    I’ve seen many examples at TOD that indicate what a can of worms an dialog/argument can become, when someone with an ideology for an agenda tries to use empirics.

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  317. [quote=”Odograph”]All in all, Truthiness is alive and well on the American right. That is, facts don’t matter, your gut does[/quote]

    I appreciate an empirical approach and a major reason for reading RR.

    Extremists, both left and right, seem to make selective use of empirics.

    I’ve seen many examples at TOD that indicate what a can of worms an dialog/argument can become, when someone with an ideology for an agenda tries to use empirics.

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  318. [quote=”Odograph”]All in all, Truthiness is alive and well on the American right. That is, facts don’t matter, your gut does[/quote]

    I appreciate an empirical approach and a major reason for reading RR.

    Extremists, both left and right, seem to make selective use of empirics.

    I’ve seen many examples at TOD that indicate what a can of worms an dialog/argument can become, when someone with an ideology for an agenda tries to use empirics.

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  319. [quote=”Odograph”]All in all, Truthiness is alive and well on the American right. That is, facts don’t matter, your gut does[/quote]

    I appreciate an empirical approach and a major reason for reading RR.

    Extremists, both left and right, seem to make selective use of empirics.

    I’ve seen many examples at TOD that indicate what a can of worms an dialog/argument can become, when someone with an ideology for an agenda tries to use empirics.

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  320. [quote=”Odograph”]All in all, Truthiness is alive and well on the American right. That is, facts don’t matter, your gut does[/quote]I appreciate an empirical approach and a major reason for reading RR.Extremists, both left and right, seem to make selective use of empirics.I’ve seen many examples at TOD that indicate what a can of worms an dialog/argument can become, when someone with an ideology for an agenda tries to use empirics. RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 2, 2008

  321. dm,

    That’s some weapons-grade crazy you got goin’ there.

    About this extinction thing – how about getting the ball rolling for us? I’ll be right behind you. Promise.

    C’mon. It’s for Mother.

    Comment by iftheshoefits | November 2, 2008

  322. dm,

    That’s some weapons-grade crazy you got goin’ there.

    About this extinction thing – how about getting the ball rolling for us? I’ll be right behind you. Promise.

    C’mon. It’s for Mother.

    Comment by iftheshoefits | November 2, 2008

  323. dm,

    That’s some weapons-grade crazy you got goin’ there.

    About this extinction thing – how about getting the ball rolling for us? I’ll be right behind you. Promise.

    C’mon. It’s for Mother.

    Comment by iftheshoefits | November 2, 2008

  324. dm,

    That’s some weapons-grade crazy you got goin’ there.

    About this extinction thing – how about getting the ball rolling for us? I’ll be right behind you. Promise.

    C’mon. It’s for Mother.

    Comment by iftheshoefits | November 2, 2008

  325. dm,

    That’s some weapons-grade crazy you got goin’ there.

    About this extinction thing – how about getting the ball rolling for us? I’ll be right behind you. Promise.

    C’mon. It’s for Mother.

    Comment by iftheshoefits | November 2, 2008

  326. dm,

    That’s some weapons-grade crazy you got goin’ there.

    About this extinction thing – how about getting the ball rolling for us? I’ll be right behind you. Promise.

    C’mon. It’s for Mother.

    Comment by iftheshoefits | November 2, 2008

  327. dm,

    That’s some weapons-grade crazy you got goin’ there.

    About this extinction thing – how about getting the ball rolling for us? I’ll be right behind you. Promise.

    C’mon. It’s for Mother.

    Comment by iftheshoefits | November 2, 2008

  328. dm,That’s some weapons-grade crazy you got goin’ there.About this extinction thing – how about getting the ball rolling for us? I’ll be right behind you. Promise.C’mon. It’s for Mother.

    Comment by iftheshoefits | November 2, 2008

  329. Dave isn’t allowed to post here, so just ignore him and I will delete his posts as they show up. Dave has documented mental issues, and I don’t allow him to act out here.

    I actually allowed him to post here for a while, but since this “Christian” thinks lying for Jesus is acceptable I warned him several times, and then told him he would never be allowed to post here again (after multiple infractions of him posting false information).

    So Dave has no voice here. As people here know, I don’t censor opposing views. But I do censor blatant falsehoods and personal attacks, both of which Dave has knowingly engaged in multiple times.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | November 3, 2008

  330. Dave isn’t allowed to post here, so just ignore him and I will delete his posts as they show up. Dave has documented mental issues, and I don’t allow him to act out here.

    I actually allowed him to post here for a while, but since this “Christian” thinks lying for Jesus is acceptable I warned him several times, and then told him he would never be allowed to post here again (after multiple infractions of him posting false information).

    So Dave has no voice here. As people here know, I don’t censor opposing views. But I do censor blatant falsehoods and personal attacks, both of which Dave has knowingly engaged in multiple times.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | November 3, 2008

  331. Dave isn’t allowed to post here, so just ignore him and I will delete his posts as they show up. Dave has documented mental issues, and I don’t allow him to act out here.

    I actually allowed him to post here for a while, but since this “Christian” thinks lying for Jesus is acceptable I warned him several times, and then told him he would never be allowed to post here again (after multiple infractions of him posting false information).

    So Dave has no voice here. As people here know, I don’t censor opposing views. But I do censor blatant falsehoods and personal attacks, both of which Dave has knowingly engaged in multiple times.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | November 3, 2008

  332. Dave isn’t allowed to post here, so just ignore him and I will delete his posts as they show up. Dave has documented mental issues, and I don’t allow him to act out here.

    I actually allowed him to post here for a while, but since this “Christian” thinks lying for Jesus is acceptable I warned him several times, and then told him he would never be allowed to post here again (after multiple infractions of him posting false information).

    So Dave has no voice here. As people here know, I don’t censor opposing views. But I do censor blatant falsehoods and personal attacks, both of which Dave has knowingly engaged in multiple times.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | November 3, 2008

  333. Dave isn’t allowed to post here, so just ignore him and I will delete his posts as they show up. Dave has documented mental issues, and I don’t allow him to act out here.

    I actually allowed him to post here for a while, but since this “Christian” thinks lying for Jesus is acceptable I warned him several times, and then told him he would never be allowed to post here again (after multiple infractions of him posting false information).

    So Dave has no voice here. As people here know, I don’t censor opposing views. But I do censor blatant falsehoods and personal attacks, both of which Dave has knowingly engaged in multiple times.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | November 3, 2008

  334. Dave isn’t allowed to post here, so just ignore him and I will delete his posts as they show up. Dave has documented mental issues, and I don’t allow him to act out here.

    I actually allowed him to post here for a while, but since this “Christian” thinks lying for Jesus is acceptable I warned him several times, and then told him he would never be allowed to post here again (after multiple infractions of him posting false information).

    So Dave has no voice here. As people here know, I don’t censor opposing views. But I do censor blatant falsehoods and personal attacks, both of which Dave has knowingly engaged in multiple times.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | November 3, 2008

  335. Dave isn’t allowed to post here, so just ignore him and I will delete his posts as they show up. Dave has documented mental issues, and I don’t allow him to act out here.

    I actually allowed him to post here for a while, but since this “Christian” thinks lying for Jesus is acceptable I warned him several times, and then told him he would never be allowed to post here again (after multiple infractions of him posting false information).

    So Dave has no voice here. As people here know, I don’t censor opposing views. But I do censor blatant falsehoods and personal attacks, both of which Dave has knowingly engaged in multiple times.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | November 3, 2008

  336. Dave isn’t allowed to post here, so just ignore him and I will delete his posts as they show up. Dave has documented mental issues, and I don’t allow him to act out here. I actually allowed him to post here for a while, but since this “Christian” thinks lying for Jesus is acceptable I warned him several times, and then told him he would never be allowed to post here again (after multiple infractions of him posting false information). So Dave has no voice here. As people here know, I don’t censor opposing views. But I do censor blatant falsehoods and personal attacks, both of which Dave has knowingly engaged in multiple times.RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | November 3, 2008

  337. RR,

    I’m guessing there’s no automated solution available to help lighten your load ?

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  338. RR,

    I’m guessing there’s no automated solution available to help lighten your load ?

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  339. RR,

    I’m guessing there’s no automated solution available to help lighten your load ?

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  340. RR,

    I’m guessing there’s no automated solution available to help lighten your load ?

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  341. RR,

    I’m guessing there’s no automated solution available to help lighten your load ?

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  342. RR,

    I’m guessing there’s no automated solution available to help lighten your load ?

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  343. RR,

    I’m guessing there’s no automated solution available to help lighten your load ?

    RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  344. RR, I’m guessing there’s no automated solution available to help lighten your load ?RBM

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  345. The better link is here .

    Obama: You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.

    So there you have it, a sound bite on energy that everyone can understand. A vote for Obama is a vote for skyrocketing energy prices.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  346. I could make it more difficult for him, but it would inconvenience everyone else at the same time. I won’t let some nut job impact the ability of people here to debate serious issues.

    I get an e-mail every time he posts something, so it’s pretty easy to just delete his tripe.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | November 3, 2008

  347. The better link is here .

    Obama: You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.

    So there you have it, a sound bite on energy that everyone can understand. A vote for Obama is a vote for skyrocketing energy prices.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  348. I could make it more difficult for him, but it would inconvenience everyone else at the same time. I won’t let some nut job impact the ability of people here to debate serious issues.

    I get an e-mail every time he posts something, so it’s pretty easy to just delete his tripe.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | November 3, 2008

  349. The better link is here .

    Obama: You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.

    So there you have it, a sound bite on energy that everyone can understand. A vote for Obama is a vote for skyrocketing energy prices.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  350. I could make it more difficult for him, but it would inconvenience everyone else at the same time. I won’t let some nut job impact the ability of people here to debate serious issues.

    I get an e-mail every time he posts something, so it’s pretty easy to just delete his tripe.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | November 3, 2008

  351. The better link is here .

    Obama: You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.

    So there you have it, a sound bite on energy that everyone can understand. A vote for Obama is a vote for skyrocketing energy prices.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  352. I could make it more difficult for him, but it would inconvenience everyone else at the same time. I won’t let some nut job impact the ability of people here to debate serious issues.

    I get an e-mail every time he posts something, so it’s pretty easy to just delete his tripe.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | November 3, 2008

  353. The better link is here .

    Obama: You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.

    So there you have it, a sound bite on energy that everyone can understand. A vote for Obama is a vote for skyrocketing energy prices.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  354. I could make it more difficult for him, but it would inconvenience everyone else at the same time. I won’t let some nut job impact the ability of people here to debate serious issues.

    I get an e-mail every time he posts something, so it’s pretty easy to just delete his tripe.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | November 3, 2008

  355. The better link is here .

    Obama: You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.

    So there you have it, a sound bite on energy that everyone can understand. A vote for Obama is a vote for skyrocketing energy prices.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  356. I could make it more difficult for him, but it would inconvenience everyone else at the same time. I won’t let some nut job impact the ability of people here to debate serious issues.

    I get an e-mail every time he posts something, so it’s pretty easy to just delete his tripe.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | November 3, 2008

  357. The better link is here .

    Obama: You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.

    So there you have it, a sound bite on energy that everyone can understand. A vote for Obama is a vote for skyrocketing energy prices.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  358. I could make it more difficult for him, but it would inconvenience everyone else at the same time. I won’t let some nut job impact the ability of people here to debate serious issues.

    I get an e-mail every time he posts something, so it’s pretty easy to just delete his tripe.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | November 3, 2008

  359. The better link is here . Obama: You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers. So there you have it, a sound bite on energy that everyone can understand. A vote for Obama is a vote for skyrocketing energy prices.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  360. I could make it more difficult for him, but it would inconvenience everyone else at the same time. I won’t let some nut job impact the ability of people here to debate serious issues.I get an e-mail every time he posts something, so it’s pretty easy to just delete his tripe.RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | November 3, 2008

  361. @RBM
    Nebraska, it is always good to learn something new. Electric companies are conservative by nature. If there is a difference it more apparent with size. Big utilities in big cities have a different often lose touch with customers. When the head office is on main street, it much easier to drop in on the GM with a complaint.
    @odograph

    Oh gosh, a graph from a blog referencing Mother Jones magazine. That is exactly where I would go to find the truth.

    RBM prefers openness in government. We have it. Every major energy project requires an EIS with public participation. Regulations are become law only after a lengthly comment period. KingofKaty is the first person who has responded by having read the National Energy Policy.

    Most energy and environmental issues are complex. I arrived at what I thought was good policy in specific area long before Bush was president. Only some of the thing on the list I presented earlier were on my narrow list. For example, building nuke plants in China. Coal plants in China are mush less efficient than those at the utility that supplies my electricity. Helping China replace coal plants is a very good way to reduce ghg.

    Comment by Kit P | November 3, 2008

  362. @RBM
    Nebraska, it is always good to learn something new. Electric companies are conservative by nature. If there is a difference it more apparent with size. Big utilities in big cities have a different often lose touch with customers. When the head office is on main street, it much easier to drop in on the GM with a complaint.
    @odograph

    Oh gosh, a graph from a blog referencing Mother Jones magazine. That is exactly where I would go to find the truth.

    RBM prefers openness in government. We have it. Every major energy project requires an EIS with public participation. Regulations are become law only after a lengthly comment period. KingofKaty is the first person who has responded by having read the National Energy Policy.

    Most energy and environmental issues are complex. I arrived at what I thought was good policy in specific area long before Bush was president. Only some of the thing on the list I presented earlier were on my narrow list. For example, building nuke plants in China. Coal plants in China are mush less efficient than those at the utility that supplies my electricity. Helping China replace coal plants is a very good way to reduce ghg.

    Comment by Kit P | November 3, 2008

  363. @RBM
    Nebraska, it is always good to learn something new. Electric companies are conservative by nature. If there is a difference it more apparent with size. Big utilities in big cities have a different often lose touch with customers. When the head office is on main street, it much easier to drop in on the GM with a complaint.
    @odograph

    Oh gosh, a graph from a blog referencing Mother Jones magazine. That is exactly where I would go to find the truth.

    RBM prefers openness in government. We have it. Every major energy project requires an EIS with public participation. Regulations are become law only after a lengthly comment period. KingofKaty is the first person who has responded by having read the National Energy Policy.

    Most energy and environmental issues are complex. I arrived at what I thought was good policy in specific area long before Bush was president. Only some of the thing on the list I presented earlier were on my narrow list. For example, building nuke plants in China. Coal plants in China are mush less efficient than those at the utility that supplies my electricity. Helping China replace coal plants is a very good way to reduce ghg.

    Comment by Kit P | November 3, 2008

  364. @RBM
    Nebraska, it is always good to learn something new. Electric companies are conservative by nature. If there is a difference it more apparent with size. Big utilities in big cities have a different often lose touch with customers. When the head office is on main street, it much easier to drop in on the GM with a complaint.
    @odograph

    Oh gosh, a graph from a blog referencing Mother Jones magazine. That is exactly where I would go to find the truth.

    RBM prefers openness in government. We have it. Every major energy project requires an EIS with public participation. Regulations are become law only after a lengthly comment period. KingofKaty is the first person who has responded by having read the National Energy Policy.

    Most energy and environmental issues are complex. I arrived at what I thought was good policy in specific area long before Bush was president. Only some of the thing on the list I presented earlier were on my narrow list. For example, building nuke plants in China. Coal plants in China are mush less efficient than those at the utility that supplies my electricity. Helping China replace coal plants is a very good way to reduce ghg.

    Comment by Kit P | November 3, 2008

  365. @RBM
    Nebraska, it is always good to learn something new. Electric companies are conservative by nature. If there is a difference it more apparent with size. Big utilities in big cities have a different often lose touch with customers. When the head office is on main street, it much easier to drop in on the GM with a complaint.
    @odograph

    Oh gosh, a graph from a blog referencing Mother Jones magazine. That is exactly where I would go to find the truth.

    RBM prefers openness in government. We have it. Every major energy project requires an EIS with public participation. Regulations are become law only after a lengthly comment period. KingofKaty is the first person who has responded by having read the National Energy Policy.

    Most energy and environmental issues are complex. I arrived at what I thought was good policy in specific area long before Bush was president. Only some of the thing on the list I presented earlier were on my narrow list. For example, building nuke plants in China. Coal plants in China are mush less efficient than those at the utility that supplies my electricity. Helping China replace coal plants is a very good way to reduce ghg.

    Comment by Kit P | November 3, 2008

  366. @RBM
    Nebraska, it is always good to learn something new. Electric companies are conservative by nature. If there is a difference it more apparent with size. Big utilities in big cities have a different often lose touch with customers. When the head office is on main street, it much easier to drop in on the GM with a complaint.
    @odograph

    Oh gosh, a graph from a blog referencing Mother Jones magazine. That is exactly where I would go to find the truth.

    RBM prefers openness in government. We have it. Every major energy project requires an EIS with public participation. Regulations are become law only after a lengthly comment period. KingofKaty is the first person who has responded by having read the National Energy Policy.

    Most energy and environmental issues are complex. I arrived at what I thought was good policy in specific area long before Bush was president. Only some of the thing on the list I presented earlier were on my narrow list. For example, building nuke plants in China. Coal plants in China are mush less efficient than those at the utility that supplies my electricity. Helping China replace coal plants is a very good way to reduce ghg.

    Comment by Kit P | November 3, 2008

  367. @RBM
    Nebraska, it is always good to learn something new. Electric companies are conservative by nature. If there is a difference it more apparent with size. Big utilities in big cities have a different often lose touch with customers. When the head office is on main street, it much easier to drop in on the GM with a complaint.
    @odograph

    Oh gosh, a graph from a blog referencing Mother Jones magazine. That is exactly where I would go to find the truth.

    RBM prefers openness in government. We have it. Every major energy project requires an EIS with public participation. Regulations are become law only after a lengthly comment period. KingofKaty is the first person who has responded by having read the National Energy Policy.

    Most energy and environmental issues are complex. I arrived at what I thought was good policy in specific area long before Bush was president. Only some of the thing on the list I presented earlier were on my narrow list. For example, building nuke plants in China. Coal plants in China are mush less efficient than those at the utility that supplies my electricity. Helping China replace coal plants is a very good way to reduce ghg.

    Comment by Kit P | November 3, 2008

  368. @RBM Nebraska, it is always good to learn something new. Electric companies are conservative by nature. If there is a difference it more apparent with size. Big utilities in big cities have a different often lose touch with customers. When the head office is on main street, it much easier to drop in on the GM with a complaint. @odographOh gosh, a graph from a blog referencing Mother Jones magazine. That is exactly where I would go to find the truth.RBM prefers openness in government. We have it. Every major energy project requires an EIS with public participation. Regulations are become law only after a lengthly comment period. KingofKaty is the first person who has responded by having read the National Energy Policy. Most energy and environmental issues are complex. I arrived at what I thought was good policy in specific area long before Bush was president. Only some of the thing on the list I presented earlier were on my narrow list. For example, building nuke plants in China. Coal plants in China are mush less efficient than those at the utility that supplies my electricity. Helping China replace coal plants is a very good way to reduce ghg.

    Comment by Kit P | November 3, 2008

  369. King, what’s the greenhouse gas toll on a solar-thermal powerplant?

    You can’t have it both ways. You can’t have cheap coal energy, and trout streams, and an effective cap and trade system.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  370. King, what’s the greenhouse gas toll on a solar-thermal powerplant?

    You can’t have it both ways. You can’t have cheap coal energy, and trout streams, and an effective cap and trade system.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  371. King, what’s the greenhouse gas toll on a solar-thermal powerplant?

    You can’t have it both ways. You can’t have cheap coal energy, and trout streams, and an effective cap and trade system.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  372. King, what’s the greenhouse gas toll on a solar-thermal powerplant?

    You can’t have it both ways. You can’t have cheap coal energy, and trout streams, and an effective cap and trade system.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  373. King, what’s the greenhouse gas toll on a solar-thermal powerplant?

    You can’t have it both ways. You can’t have cheap coal energy, and trout streams, and an effective cap and trade system.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  374. King, what’s the greenhouse gas toll on a solar-thermal powerplant?

    You can’t have it both ways. You can’t have cheap coal energy, and trout streams, and an effective cap and trade system.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  375. King, what’s the greenhouse gas toll on a solar-thermal powerplant?

    You can’t have it both ways. You can’t have cheap coal energy, and trout streams, and an effective cap and trade system.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  376. King, what’s the greenhouse gas toll on a solar-thermal powerplant?You can’t have it both ways. You can’t have cheap coal energy, and trout streams, and an effective cap and trade system.- odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  377. Kit, go ahead, show me your graph.

    … but I’ll agree cleaning Chinese coal plants, and slowing their growth, is a higher priority our own. Ours are already on a slowing curve.

    I seem to recall Joe Biden got some grief for making that same observation though.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  378. Kit, go ahead, show me your graph.

    … but I’ll agree cleaning Chinese coal plants, and slowing their growth, is a higher priority our own. Ours are already on a slowing curve.

    I seem to recall Joe Biden got some grief for making that same observation though.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  379. Kit, go ahead, show me your graph.

    … but I’ll agree cleaning Chinese coal plants, and slowing their growth, is a higher priority our own. Ours are already on a slowing curve.

    I seem to recall Joe Biden got some grief for making that same observation though.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  380. Kit, go ahead, show me your graph.

    … but I’ll agree cleaning Chinese coal plants, and slowing their growth, is a higher priority our own. Ours are already on a slowing curve.

    I seem to recall Joe Biden got some grief for making that same observation though.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  381. Kit, go ahead, show me your graph.

    … but I’ll agree cleaning Chinese coal plants, and slowing their growth, is a higher priority our own. Ours are already on a slowing curve.

    I seem to recall Joe Biden got some grief for making that same observation though.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  382. Kit, go ahead, show me your graph.

    … but I’ll agree cleaning Chinese coal plants, and slowing their growth, is a higher priority our own. Ours are already on a slowing curve.

    I seem to recall Joe Biden got some grief for making that same observation though.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  383. Kit, go ahead, show me your graph.

    … but I’ll agree cleaning Chinese coal plants, and slowing their growth, is a higher priority our own. Ours are already on a slowing curve.

    I seem to recall Joe Biden got some grief for making that same observation though.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  384. Kit, go ahead, show me your graph…. but I’ll agree cleaning Chinese coal plants, and slowing their growth, is a higher priority our own. Ours are already on a slowing curve.I seem to recall Joe Biden got some grief for making that same observation though.- odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  385. Odograph – I think we should actually thank Obama for being honest about cap and trade. There is no free lunch, reducing CO2 emissions will be very expensive and lead inevitably to higher energy prices.

    I hear that the Bush administration is going to legalize stealing candy from babies and wants to bring back lead paint.;)

    Like most things, the Stream Buffer Zone Rule has two sides to it. I’m not a big fan of mountaintop mine removal, but it is legal under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. The SMCRA specifically allows valley fills in streams. Environmentalists wanted to use the stream rule to ban ALL mountaintop mining. Valley fills were constructed from the 1960s. The rules were not the subject of controversy or confusion until 1998 when the interpretation of the rules became an issue in a lawsuit brought by environmental groups.

    If environmentalists don’t like mountaintop removal, then work to repeal SMCRA. Earlier someone expressed a preference for not legislating behind closed doors. I think it is equally bad to legislate through the courts. Environmentalists use lawsuits to gain what they couldn’t achieve through the elective process.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  386. Odograph – I think we should actually thank Obama for being honest about cap and trade. There is no free lunch, reducing CO2 emissions will be very expensive and lead inevitably to higher energy prices.

    I hear that the Bush administration is going to legalize stealing candy from babies and wants to bring back lead paint.;)

    Like most things, the Stream Buffer Zone Rule has two sides to it. I’m not a big fan of mountaintop mine removal, but it is legal under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. The SMCRA specifically allows valley fills in streams. Environmentalists wanted to use the stream rule to ban ALL mountaintop mining. Valley fills were constructed from the 1960s. The rules were not the subject of controversy or confusion until 1998 when the interpretation of the rules became an issue in a lawsuit brought by environmental groups.

    If environmentalists don’t like mountaintop removal, then work to repeal SMCRA. Earlier someone expressed a preference for not legislating behind closed doors. I think it is equally bad to legislate through the courts. Environmentalists use lawsuits to gain what they couldn’t achieve through the elective process.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  387. Odograph – I think we should actually thank Obama for being honest about cap and trade. There is no free lunch, reducing CO2 emissions will be very expensive and lead inevitably to higher energy prices.

    I hear that the Bush administration is going to legalize stealing candy from babies and wants to bring back lead paint.;)

    Like most things, the Stream Buffer Zone Rule has two sides to it. I’m not a big fan of mountaintop mine removal, but it is legal under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. The SMCRA specifically allows valley fills in streams. Environmentalists wanted to use the stream rule to ban ALL mountaintop mining. Valley fills were constructed from the 1960s. The rules were not the subject of controversy or confusion until 1998 when the interpretation of the rules became an issue in a lawsuit brought by environmental groups.

    If environmentalists don’t like mountaintop removal, then work to repeal SMCRA. Earlier someone expressed a preference for not legislating behind closed doors. I think it is equally bad to legislate through the courts. Environmentalists use lawsuits to gain what they couldn’t achieve through the elective process.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  388. Odograph – I think we should actually thank Obama for being honest about cap and trade. There is no free lunch, reducing CO2 emissions will be very expensive and lead inevitably to higher energy prices.

    I hear that the Bush administration is going to legalize stealing candy from babies and wants to bring back lead paint.;)

    Like most things, the Stream Buffer Zone Rule has two sides to it. I’m not a big fan of mountaintop mine removal, but it is legal under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. The SMCRA specifically allows valley fills in streams. Environmentalists wanted to use the stream rule to ban ALL mountaintop mining. Valley fills were constructed from the 1960s. The rules were not the subject of controversy or confusion until 1998 when the interpretation of the rules became an issue in a lawsuit brought by environmental groups.

    If environmentalists don’t like mountaintop removal, then work to repeal SMCRA. Earlier someone expressed a preference for not legislating behind closed doors. I think it is equally bad to legislate through the courts. Environmentalists use lawsuits to gain what they couldn’t achieve through the elective process.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  389. Odograph – I think we should actually thank Obama for being honest about cap and trade. There is no free lunch, reducing CO2 emissions will be very expensive and lead inevitably to higher energy prices.

    I hear that the Bush administration is going to legalize stealing candy from babies and wants to bring back lead paint.;)

    Like most things, the Stream Buffer Zone Rule has two sides to it. I’m not a big fan of mountaintop mine removal, but it is legal under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. The SMCRA specifically allows valley fills in streams. Environmentalists wanted to use the stream rule to ban ALL mountaintop mining. Valley fills were constructed from the 1960s. The rules were not the subject of controversy or confusion until 1998 when the interpretation of the rules became an issue in a lawsuit brought by environmental groups.

    If environmentalists don’t like mountaintop removal, then work to repeal SMCRA. Earlier someone expressed a preference for not legislating behind closed doors. I think it is equally bad to legislate through the courts. Environmentalists use lawsuits to gain what they couldn’t achieve through the elective process.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  390. Odograph – I think we should actually thank Obama for being honest about cap and trade. There is no free lunch, reducing CO2 emissions will be very expensive and lead inevitably to higher energy prices.

    I hear that the Bush administration is going to legalize stealing candy from babies and wants to bring back lead paint.;)

    Like most things, the Stream Buffer Zone Rule has two sides to it. I’m not a big fan of mountaintop mine removal, but it is legal under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. The SMCRA specifically allows valley fills in streams. Environmentalists wanted to use the stream rule to ban ALL mountaintop mining. Valley fills were constructed from the 1960s. The rules were not the subject of controversy or confusion until 1998 when the interpretation of the rules became an issue in a lawsuit brought by environmental groups.

    If environmentalists don’t like mountaintop removal, then work to repeal SMCRA. Earlier someone expressed a preference for not legislating behind closed doors. I think it is equally bad to legislate through the courts. Environmentalists use lawsuits to gain what they couldn’t achieve through the elective process.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  391. Odograph – I think we should actually thank Obama for being honest about cap and trade. There is no free lunch, reducing CO2 emissions will be very expensive and lead inevitably to higher energy prices.

    I hear that the Bush administration is going to legalize stealing candy from babies and wants to bring back lead paint.;)

    Like most things, the Stream Buffer Zone Rule has two sides to it. I’m not a big fan of mountaintop mine removal, but it is legal under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. The SMCRA specifically allows valley fills in streams. Environmentalists wanted to use the stream rule to ban ALL mountaintop mining. Valley fills were constructed from the 1960s. The rules were not the subject of controversy or confusion until 1998 when the interpretation of the rules became an issue in a lawsuit brought by environmental groups.

    If environmentalists don’t like mountaintop removal, then work to repeal SMCRA. Earlier someone expressed a preference for not legislating behind closed doors. I think it is equally bad to legislate through the courts. Environmentalists use lawsuits to gain what they couldn’t achieve through the elective process.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  392. Odograph – I think we should actually thank Obama for being honest about cap and trade. There is no free lunch, reducing CO2 emissions will be very expensive and lead inevitably to higher energy prices. I hear that the Bush administration is going to legalize stealing candy from babies and wants to bring back lead paint.;) Like most things, the Stream Buffer Zone Rule has two sides to it. I’m not a big fan of mountaintop mine removal, but it is legal under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. The SMCRA specifically allows valley fills in streams. Environmentalists wanted to use the stream rule to ban ALL mountaintop mining. Valley fills were constructed from the 1960s. The rules were not the subject of controversy or confusion until 1998 when the interpretation of the rules became an issue in a lawsuit brought by environmental groups.If environmentalists don’t like mountaintop removal, then work to repeal SMCRA. Earlier someone expressed a preference for not legislating behind closed doors. I think it is equally bad to legislate through the courts. Environmentalists use lawsuits to gain what they couldn’t achieve through the elective process.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  393. How high is skyrocket? I’d feel better if he’d have said much higher. Or twice as much. Even triple. Skyrocket is spooky as hell though. And candles are smelly.

    Comment by Maury | November 3, 2008

  394. How high is skyrocket? I’d feel better if he’d have said much higher. Or twice as much. Even triple. Skyrocket is spooky as hell though. And candles are smelly.

    Comment by Maury | November 3, 2008

  395. How high is skyrocket? I’d feel better if he’d have said much higher. Or twice as much. Even triple. Skyrocket is spooky as hell though. And candles are smelly.

    Comment by Maury | November 3, 2008

  396. How high is skyrocket? I’d feel better if he’d have said much higher. Or twice as much. Even triple. Skyrocket is spooky as hell though. And candles are smelly.

    Comment by Maury | November 3, 2008

  397. How high is skyrocket? I’d feel better if he’d have said much higher. Or twice as much. Even triple. Skyrocket is spooky as hell though. And candles are smelly.

    Comment by Maury | November 3, 2008

  398. How high is skyrocket? I’d feel better if he’d have said much higher. Or twice as much. Even triple. Skyrocket is spooky as hell though. And candles are smelly.

    Comment by Maury | November 3, 2008

  399. How high is skyrocket? I’d feel better if he’d have said much higher. Or twice as much. Even triple. Skyrocket is spooky as hell though. And candles are smelly.

    Comment by Maury | November 3, 2008

  400. How high is skyrocket? I’d feel better if he’d have said much higher. Or twice as much. Even triple. Skyrocket is spooky as hell though. And candles are smelly.

    Comment by Maury | November 3, 2008

  401. I’m glad to hear no one prefers coal plants to trout fishing.

    Maury, I wonder how low the pure-coal states are starting. New coal plants are increasingly expensive, but old ones have largely amortized costs.

    Ah, States Ranked by Electricity Price

    As far as I’m concerned, those bottom, low cost, coal based, states are free riding on the rest of us.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  402. I’m glad to hear no one prefers coal plants to trout fishing.

    Maury, I wonder how low the pure-coal states are starting. New coal plants are increasingly expensive, but old ones have largely amortized costs.

    Ah, States Ranked by Electricity Price

    As far as I’m concerned, those bottom, low cost, coal based, states are free riding on the rest of us.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  403. I’m glad to hear no one prefers coal plants to trout fishing.

    Maury, I wonder how low the pure-coal states are starting. New coal plants are increasingly expensive, but old ones have largely amortized costs.

    Ah, States Ranked by Electricity Price

    As far as I’m concerned, those bottom, low cost, coal based, states are free riding on the rest of us.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  404. I’m glad to hear no one prefers coal plants to trout fishing.

    Maury, I wonder how low the pure-coal states are starting. New coal plants are increasingly expensive, but old ones have largely amortized costs.

    Ah, States Ranked by Electricity Price

    As far as I’m concerned, those bottom, low cost, coal based, states are free riding on the rest of us.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  405. I’m glad to hear no one prefers coal plants to trout fishing.

    Maury, I wonder how low the pure-coal states are starting. New coal plants are increasingly expensive, but old ones have largely amortized costs.

    Ah, States Ranked by Electricity Price

    As far as I’m concerned, those bottom, low cost, coal based, states are free riding on the rest of us.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  406. I’m glad to hear no one prefers coal plants to trout fishing.

    Maury, I wonder how low the pure-coal states are starting. New coal plants are increasingly expensive, but old ones have largely amortized costs.

    Ah, States Ranked by Electricity Price

    As far as I’m concerned, those bottom, low cost, coal based, states are free riding on the rest of us.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  407. I’m glad to hear no one prefers coal plants to trout fishing.

    Maury, I wonder how low the pure-coal states are starting. New coal plants are increasingly expensive, but old ones have largely amortized costs.

    Ah, States Ranked by Electricity Price

    As far as I’m concerned, those bottom, low cost, coal based, states are free riding on the rest of us.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  408. I’m glad to hear no one prefers coal plants to trout fishing.Maury, I wonder how low the pure-coal states are starting. New coal plants are increasingly expensive, but old ones have largely amortized costs.Ah, States Ranked by Electricity PriceAs far as I’m concerned, those bottom, low cost, coal based, states are free riding on the rest of us.- odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  409. Someone posted this yesterday at TOD, regarding the Obama audio tape. I don’t really know too much about the issue, but Obama is generally very careful about what he says. So I would have a hard time believing he came out and said he was willing to bankrupt the coal industry:

    the shoddy Newsbusters blog has been caught in the past simply fabricating news regarding the Chronicle’s coverage. Our paper has demanded corrections for their fiction, but to no avail.

    We contacted Bill Riggs, regional press secretary of the Republican National Committee tonight on his emailing of this erroneous report suggesting a ”hidden” Chronicle audiotape to political reporters. His response: he didn’t confirm it, or write the headline. He just sent it out.

    He got taken. And so did the rest.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | November 3, 2008

  410. Someone posted this yesterday at TOD, regarding the Obama audio tape. I don’t really know too much about the issue, but Obama is generally very careful about what he says. So I would have a hard time believing he came out and said he was willing to bankrupt the coal industry:

    the shoddy Newsbusters blog has been caught in the past simply fabricating news regarding the Chronicle’s coverage. Our paper has demanded corrections for their fiction, but to no avail.

    We contacted Bill Riggs, regional press secretary of the Republican National Committee tonight on his emailing of this erroneous report suggesting a ”hidden” Chronicle audiotape to political reporters. His response: he didn’t confirm it, or write the headline. He just sent it out.

    He got taken. And so did the rest.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | November 3, 2008

  411. Someone posted this yesterday at TOD, regarding the Obama audio tape. I don’t really know too much about the issue, but Obama is generally very careful about what he says. So I would have a hard time believing he came out and said he was willing to bankrupt the coal industry:

    the shoddy Newsbusters blog has been caught in the past simply fabricating news regarding the Chronicle’s coverage. Our paper has demanded corrections for their fiction, but to no avail.

    We contacted Bill Riggs, regional press secretary of the Republican National Committee tonight on his emailing of this erroneous report suggesting a ”hidden” Chronicle audiotape to political reporters. His response: he didn’t confirm it, or write the headline. He just sent it out.

    He got taken. And so did the rest.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | November 3, 2008

  412. Someone posted this yesterday at TOD, regarding the Obama audio tape. I don’t really know too much about the issue, but Obama is generally very careful about what he says. So I would have a hard time believing he came out and said he was willing to bankrupt the coal industry:

    the shoddy Newsbusters blog has been caught in the past simply fabricating news regarding the Chronicle’s coverage. Our paper has demanded corrections for their fiction, but to no avail.

    We contacted Bill Riggs, regional press secretary of the Republican National Committee tonight on his emailing of this erroneous report suggesting a ”hidden” Chronicle audiotape to political reporters. His response: he didn’t confirm it, or write the headline. He just sent it out.

    He got taken. And so did the rest.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | November 3, 2008

  413. Someone posted this yesterday at TOD, regarding the Obama audio tape. I don’t really know too much about the issue, but Obama is generally very careful about what he says. So I would have a hard time believing he came out and said he was willing to bankrupt the coal industry:

    the shoddy Newsbusters blog has been caught in the past simply fabricating news regarding the Chronicle’s coverage. Our paper has demanded corrections for their fiction, but to no avail.

    We contacted Bill Riggs, regional press secretary of the Republican National Committee tonight on his emailing of this erroneous report suggesting a ”hidden” Chronicle audiotape to political reporters. His response: he didn’t confirm it, or write the headline. He just sent it out.

    He got taken. And so did the rest.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | November 3, 2008

  414. Someone posted this yesterday at TOD, regarding the Obama audio tape. I don’t really know too much about the issue, but Obama is generally very careful about what he says. So I would have a hard time believing he came out and said he was willing to bankrupt the coal industry:

    the shoddy Newsbusters blog has been caught in the past simply fabricating news regarding the Chronicle’s coverage. Our paper has demanded corrections for their fiction, but to no avail.

    We contacted Bill Riggs, regional press secretary of the Republican National Committee tonight on his emailing of this erroneous report suggesting a ”hidden” Chronicle audiotape to political reporters. His response: he didn’t confirm it, or write the headline. He just sent it out.

    He got taken. And so did the rest.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | November 3, 2008

  415. Someone posted this yesterday at TOD, regarding the Obama audio tape. I don’t really know too much about the issue, but Obama is generally very careful about what he says. So I would have a hard time believing he came out and said he was willing to bankrupt the coal industry:

    the shoddy Newsbusters blog has been caught in the past simply fabricating news regarding the Chronicle’s coverage. Our paper has demanded corrections for their fiction, but to no avail.

    We contacted Bill Riggs, regional press secretary of the Republican National Committee tonight on his emailing of this erroneous report suggesting a ”hidden” Chronicle audiotape to political reporters. His response: he didn’t confirm it, or write the headline. He just sent it out.

    He got taken. And so did the rest.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | November 3, 2008

  416. Someone posted this yesterday at TOD, regarding the Obama audio tape. I don’t really know too much about the issue, but Obama is generally very careful about what he says. So I would have a hard time believing he came out and said he was willing to bankrupt the coal industry:the shoddy Newsbusters blog has been caught in the past simply fabricating news regarding the Chronicle’s coverage. Our paper has demanded corrections for their fiction, but to no avail.We contacted Bill Riggs, regional press secretary of the Republican National Committee tonight on his emailing of this erroneous report suggesting a ”hidden” Chronicle audiotape to political reporters. His response: he didn’t confirm it, or write the headline. He just sent it out.He got taken. And so did the rest.RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | November 3, 2008

  417. It’s not practical to bankrupt coal anytime soon. Sure, there are some coal plants in the American soutwest that might be ridiculous, if solar thermal works in exactly the same place. But I’m not sure the solar efficiency in KY or WV … or who has both the funding or approval to load them up with more nukes.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  418. It’s not practical to bankrupt coal anytime soon. Sure, there are some coal plants in the American soutwest that might be ridiculous, if solar thermal works in exactly the same place. But I’m not sure the solar efficiency in KY or WV … or who has both the funding or approval to load them up with more nukes.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  419. It’s not practical to bankrupt coal anytime soon. Sure, there are some coal plants in the American soutwest that might be ridiculous, if solar thermal works in exactly the same place. But I’m not sure the solar efficiency in KY or WV … or who has both the funding or approval to load them up with more nukes.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  420. It’s not practical to bankrupt coal anytime soon. Sure, there are some coal plants in the American soutwest that might be ridiculous, if solar thermal works in exactly the same place. But I’m not sure the solar efficiency in KY or WV … or who has both the funding or approval to load them up with more nukes.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  421. It’s not practical to bankrupt coal anytime soon. Sure, there are some coal plants in the American soutwest that might be ridiculous, if solar thermal works in exactly the same place. But I’m not sure the solar efficiency in KY or WV … or who has both the funding or approval to load them up with more nukes.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  422. It’s not practical to bankrupt coal anytime soon. Sure, there are some coal plants in the American soutwest that might be ridiculous, if solar thermal works in exactly the same place. But I’m not sure the solar efficiency in KY or WV … or who has both the funding or approval to load them up with more nukes.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  423. It’s not practical to bankrupt coal anytime soon. Sure, there are some coal plants in the American soutwest that might be ridiculous, if solar thermal works in exactly the same place. But I’m not sure the solar efficiency in KY or WV … or who has both the funding or approval to load them up with more nukes.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  424. It’s not practical to bankrupt coal anytime soon. Sure, there are some coal plants in the American soutwest that might be ridiculous, if solar thermal works in exactly the same place. But I’m not sure the solar efficiency in KY or WV … or who has both the funding or approval to load them up with more nukes.- odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  425. Here’s a technical question Robert: to what degree can these below-mountain coal reserves be used for long term natural gas (coal gas) production?

    Are there in-situ techniques?

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  426. Here’s a technical question Robert: to what degree can these below-mountain coal reserves be used for long term natural gas (coal gas) production?

    Are there in-situ techniques?

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  427. Here’s a technical question Robert: to what degree can these below-mountain coal reserves be used for long term natural gas (coal gas) production?

    Are there in-situ techniques?

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  428. Here’s a technical question Robert: to what degree can these below-mountain coal reserves be used for long term natural gas (coal gas) production?

    Are there in-situ techniques?

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  429. Here’s a technical question Robert: to what degree can these below-mountain coal reserves be used for long term natural gas (coal gas) production?

    Are there in-situ techniques?

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  430. Here’s a technical question Robert: to what degree can these below-mountain coal reserves be used for long term natural gas (coal gas) production?

    Are there in-situ techniques?

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  431. Here’s a technical question Robert: to what degree can these below-mountain coal reserves be used for long term natural gas (coal gas) production?

    Are there in-situ techniques?

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  432. Here’s a technical question Robert: to what degree can these below-mountain coal reserves be used for long term natural gas (coal gas) production?Are there in-situ techniques?- odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  433. Skimming, I see in-situ combustion, and bio-conversion. I think I’d prefer bio-conversion.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  434. Skimming, I see in-situ combustion, and bio-conversion. I think I’d prefer bio-conversion.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  435. Skimming, I see in-situ combustion, and bio-conversion. I think I’d prefer bio-conversion.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  436. Skimming, I see in-situ combustion, and bio-conversion. I think I’d prefer bio-conversion.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  437. Skimming, I see in-situ combustion, and bio-conversion. I think I’d prefer bio-conversion.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  438. Skimming, I see in-situ combustion, and bio-conversion. I think I’d prefer bio-conversion.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  439. Skimming, I see in-situ combustion, and bio-conversion. I think I’d prefer bio-conversion.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  440. Skimming, I see in-situ combustion, and bio-conversion. I think I’d prefer bio-conversion.- odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  441. to what degree can these below-mountain coal reserves be used for long term natural gas (coal gas) production?

    The idea has been around for a while. One of my managers at COP talked about it with me about 5 years ago. I am not sure of the present status regarding feasibility. Obviously if you are making carbon monoxide under ground, you need to be very careful that the gas is coming out where you want it to come out.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | November 3, 2008

  442. to what degree can these below-mountain coal reserves be used for long term natural gas (coal gas) production?

    The idea has been around for a while. One of my managers at COP talked about it with me about 5 years ago. I am not sure of the present status regarding feasibility. Obviously if you are making carbon monoxide under ground, you need to be very careful that the gas is coming out where you want it to come out.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | November 3, 2008

  443. to what degree can these below-mountain coal reserves be used for long term natural gas (coal gas) production?

    The idea has been around for a while. One of my managers at COP talked about it with me about 5 years ago. I am not sure of the present status regarding feasibility. Obviously if you are making carbon monoxide under ground, you need to be very careful that the gas is coming out where you want it to come out.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | November 3, 2008

  444. to what degree can these below-mountain coal reserves be used for long term natural gas (coal gas) production?

    The idea has been around for a while. One of my managers at COP talked about it with me about 5 years ago. I am not sure of the present status regarding feasibility. Obviously if you are making carbon monoxide under ground, you need to be very careful that the gas is coming out where you want it to come out.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | November 3, 2008

  445. to what degree can these below-mountain coal reserves be used for long term natural gas (coal gas) production?

    The idea has been around for a while. One of my managers at COP talked about it with me about 5 years ago. I am not sure of the present status regarding feasibility. Obviously if you are making carbon monoxide under ground, you need to be very careful that the gas is coming out where you want it to come out.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | November 3, 2008

  446. to what degree can these below-mountain coal reserves be used for long term natural gas (coal gas) production?

    The idea has been around for a while. One of my managers at COP talked about it with me about 5 years ago. I am not sure of the present status regarding feasibility. Obviously if you are making carbon monoxide under ground, you need to be very careful that the gas is coming out where you want it to come out.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | November 3, 2008

  447. to what degree can these below-mountain coal reserves be used for long term natural gas (coal gas) production?

    The idea has been around for a while. One of my managers at COP talked about it with me about 5 years ago. I am not sure of the present status regarding feasibility. Obviously if you are making carbon monoxide under ground, you need to be very careful that the gas is coming out where you want it to come out.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | November 3, 2008

  448. to what degree can these below-mountain coal reserves be used for long term natural gas (coal gas) production?The idea has been around for a while. One of my managers at COP talked about it with me about 5 years ago. I am not sure of the present status regarding feasibility. Obviously if you are making carbon monoxide under ground, you need to be very careful that the gas is coming out where you want it to come out.RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | November 3, 2008

  449. RR – click on the link to the audio I provided a few posts ago. It is Obama unplugged, with the “uhs” and “ahs” he uses when speaking without the teleprompter.

    The explanation isn’t that Newsbusters or others are taking Obama out of context, the problem is that Obama says one thing when he thinks he is among friends, and something else entirely when he is trolling for votes. The old line media like the SF Chron are so in the tank for Obama they get upset when they are caught protecting him.

    When Obama talks about “bankrupting coal” or “skyrocketing electric prices”, or tells Joe the Plumber he wants to “spread the wealth around”, that is the REAL Obama. The LA Times has a tape of the REAL Obama toasting a Palestinian terrorist. The REAL Obama (and Joe Biden), give nothing to charity but expect to raise YOUR taxes to take care of their relatives. That is the REAL Obama/Biden. Remember a few months back when there was a flap about Cindy McCain not paying property taxes on a condo in La Jolla – she was letting her aunt live there rent free. Obama’s aunt – lives in a public housing project in Boston.

    You and others bashed Sarah Palin for being inexperienced and not giving access to reporters. Obama hasn’t given a press conference or responded to press inquiries for over a month. Biden seems to have gone into hiding. Why? Because their handlers know that either candidate might go off script and tell voters what they REALLY think.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  450. RR – click on the link to the audio I provided a few posts ago. It is Obama unplugged, with the “uhs” and “ahs” he uses when speaking without the teleprompter.

    The explanation isn’t that Newsbusters or others are taking Obama out of context, the problem is that Obama says one thing when he thinks he is among friends, and something else entirely when he is trolling for votes. The old line media like the SF Chron are so in the tank for Obama they get upset when they are caught protecting him.

    When Obama talks about “bankrupting coal” or “skyrocketing electric prices”, or tells Joe the Plumber he wants to “spread the wealth around”, that is the REAL Obama. The LA Times has a tape of the REAL Obama toasting a Palestinian terrorist. The REAL Obama (and Joe Biden), give nothing to charity but expect to raise YOUR taxes to take care of their relatives. That is the REAL Obama/Biden. Remember a few months back when there was a flap about Cindy McCain not paying property taxes on a condo in La Jolla – she was letting her aunt live there rent free. Obama’s aunt – lives in a public housing project in Boston.

    You and others bashed Sarah Palin for being inexperienced and not giving access to reporters. Obama hasn’t given a press conference or responded to press inquiries for over a month. Biden seems to have gone into hiding. Why? Because their handlers know that either candidate might go off script and tell voters what they REALLY think.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  451. RR – click on the link to the audio I provided a few posts ago. It is Obama unplugged, with the “uhs” and “ahs” he uses when speaking without the teleprompter.

    The explanation isn’t that Newsbusters or others are taking Obama out of context, the problem is that Obama says one thing when he thinks he is among friends, and something else entirely when he is trolling for votes. The old line media like the SF Chron are so in the tank for Obama they get upset when they are caught protecting him.

    When Obama talks about “bankrupting coal” or “skyrocketing electric prices”, or tells Joe the Plumber he wants to “spread the wealth around”, that is the REAL Obama. The LA Times has a tape of the REAL Obama toasting a Palestinian terrorist. The REAL Obama (and Joe Biden), give nothing to charity but expect to raise YOUR taxes to take care of their relatives. That is the REAL Obama/Biden. Remember a few months back when there was a flap about Cindy McCain not paying property taxes on a condo in La Jolla – she was letting her aunt live there rent free. Obama’s aunt – lives in a public housing project in Boston.

    You and others bashed Sarah Palin for being inexperienced and not giving access to reporters. Obama hasn’t given a press conference or responded to press inquiries for over a month. Biden seems to have gone into hiding. Why? Because their handlers know that either candidate might go off script and tell voters what they REALLY think.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  452. RR – click on the link to the audio I provided a few posts ago. It is Obama unplugged, with the “uhs” and “ahs” he uses when speaking without the teleprompter.

    The explanation isn’t that Newsbusters or others are taking Obama out of context, the problem is that Obama says one thing when he thinks he is among friends, and something else entirely when he is trolling for votes. The old line media like the SF Chron are so in the tank for Obama they get upset when they are caught protecting him.

    When Obama talks about “bankrupting coal” or “skyrocketing electric prices”, or tells Joe the Plumber he wants to “spread the wealth around”, that is the REAL Obama. The LA Times has a tape of the REAL Obama toasting a Palestinian terrorist. The REAL Obama (and Joe Biden), give nothing to charity but expect to raise YOUR taxes to take care of their relatives. That is the REAL Obama/Biden. Remember a few months back when there was a flap about Cindy McCain not paying property taxes on a condo in La Jolla – she was letting her aunt live there rent free. Obama’s aunt – lives in a public housing project in Boston.

    You and others bashed Sarah Palin for being inexperienced and not giving access to reporters. Obama hasn’t given a press conference or responded to press inquiries for over a month. Biden seems to have gone into hiding. Why? Because their handlers know that either candidate might go off script and tell voters what they REALLY think.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  453. RR – click on the link to the audio I provided a few posts ago. It is Obama unplugged, with the “uhs” and “ahs” he uses when speaking without the teleprompter.

    The explanation isn’t that Newsbusters or others are taking Obama out of context, the problem is that Obama says one thing when he thinks he is among friends, and something else entirely when he is trolling for votes. The old line media like the SF Chron are so in the tank for Obama they get upset when they are caught protecting him.

    When Obama talks about “bankrupting coal” or “skyrocketing electric prices”, or tells Joe the Plumber he wants to “spread the wealth around”, that is the REAL Obama. The LA Times has a tape of the REAL Obama toasting a Palestinian terrorist. The REAL Obama (and Joe Biden), give nothing to charity but expect to raise YOUR taxes to take care of their relatives. That is the REAL Obama/Biden. Remember a few months back when there was a flap about Cindy McCain not paying property taxes on a condo in La Jolla – she was letting her aunt live there rent free. Obama’s aunt – lives in a public housing project in Boston.

    You and others bashed Sarah Palin for being inexperienced and not giving access to reporters. Obama hasn’t given a press conference or responded to press inquiries for over a month. Biden seems to have gone into hiding. Why? Because their handlers know that either candidate might go off script and tell voters what they REALLY think.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  454. RR – click on the link to the audio I provided a few posts ago. It is Obama unplugged, with the “uhs” and “ahs” he uses when speaking without the teleprompter.

    The explanation isn’t that Newsbusters or others are taking Obama out of context, the problem is that Obama says one thing when he thinks he is among friends, and something else entirely when he is trolling for votes. The old line media like the SF Chron are so in the tank for Obama they get upset when they are caught protecting him.

    When Obama talks about “bankrupting coal” or “skyrocketing electric prices”, or tells Joe the Plumber he wants to “spread the wealth around”, that is the REAL Obama. The LA Times has a tape of the REAL Obama toasting a Palestinian terrorist. The REAL Obama (and Joe Biden), give nothing to charity but expect to raise YOUR taxes to take care of their relatives. That is the REAL Obama/Biden. Remember a few months back when there was a flap about Cindy McCain not paying property taxes on a condo in La Jolla – she was letting her aunt live there rent free. Obama’s aunt – lives in a public housing project in Boston.

    You and others bashed Sarah Palin for being inexperienced and not giving access to reporters. Obama hasn’t given a press conference or responded to press inquiries for over a month. Biden seems to have gone into hiding. Why? Because their handlers know that either candidate might go off script and tell voters what they REALLY think.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  455. RR – click on the link to the audio I provided a few posts ago. It is Obama unplugged, with the “uhs” and “ahs” he uses when speaking without the teleprompter.

    The explanation isn’t that Newsbusters or others are taking Obama out of context, the problem is that Obama says one thing when he thinks he is among friends, and something else entirely when he is trolling for votes. The old line media like the SF Chron are so in the tank for Obama they get upset when they are caught protecting him.

    When Obama talks about “bankrupting coal” or “skyrocketing electric prices”, or tells Joe the Plumber he wants to “spread the wealth around”, that is the REAL Obama. The LA Times has a tape of the REAL Obama toasting a Palestinian terrorist. The REAL Obama (and Joe Biden), give nothing to charity but expect to raise YOUR taxes to take care of their relatives. That is the REAL Obama/Biden. Remember a few months back when there was a flap about Cindy McCain not paying property taxes on a condo in La Jolla – she was letting her aunt live there rent free. Obama’s aunt – lives in a public housing project in Boston.

    You and others bashed Sarah Palin for being inexperienced and not giving access to reporters. Obama hasn’t given a press conference or responded to press inquiries for over a month. Biden seems to have gone into hiding. Why? Because their handlers know that either candidate might go off script and tell voters what they REALLY think.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  456. RR – click on the link to the audio I provided a few posts ago. It is Obama unplugged, with the “uhs” and “ahs” he uses when speaking without the teleprompter. The explanation isn’t that Newsbusters or others are taking Obama out of context, the problem is that Obama says one thing when he thinks he is among friends, and something else entirely when he is trolling for votes. The old line media like the SF Chron are so in the tank for Obama they get upset when they are caught protecting him. When Obama talks about “bankrupting coal” or “skyrocketing electric prices”, or tells Joe the Plumber he wants to “spread the wealth around”, that is the REAL Obama. The LA Times has a tape of the REAL Obama toasting a Palestinian terrorist. The REAL Obama (and Joe Biden), give nothing to charity but expect to raise YOUR taxes to take care of their relatives. That is the REAL Obama/Biden. Remember a few months back when there was a flap about Cindy McCain not paying property taxes on a condo in La Jolla – she was letting her aunt live there rent free. Obama’s aunt – lives in a public housing project in Boston. You and others bashed Sarah Palin for being inexperienced and not giving access to reporters. Obama hasn’t given a press conference or responded to press inquiries for over a month. Biden seems to have gone into hiding. Why? Because their handlers know that either candidate might go off script and tell voters what they REALLY think.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  457. You and others bashed Sarah Palin for being inexperienced and not giving access to reporters.

    My problems with Palin go far beyond that. For instance, what is this socialism business she is slinging at Obama? Were her policies toward the oil companies not socialist in nature? Is redistributing the oil wealth not socialist? When she slings mud over former Obama associations, what are we to make of her ties to the Alaska Independence Party? They are certainly at least as strong as Obama’s ties to Ayres.

    Obama hasn’t given a press conference or responded to press inquiries for over a month.

    I have seen him interviewed twice in the past week. But if I was in his shoes, I would play defense right now. Palin needed to play offense from the beginning, because nobody knew who she was or why she was a qualified pick.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | November 3, 2008

  458. You and others bashed Sarah Palin for being inexperienced and not giving access to reporters.

    My problems with Palin go far beyond that. For instance, what is this socialism business she is slinging at Obama? Were her policies toward the oil companies not socialist in nature? Is redistributing the oil wealth not socialist? When she slings mud over former Obama associations, what are we to make of her ties to the Alaska Independence Party? They are certainly at least as strong as Obama’s ties to Ayres.

    Obama hasn’t given a press conference or responded to press inquiries for over a month.

    I have seen him interviewed twice in the past week. But if I was in his shoes, I would play defense right now. Palin needed to play offense from the beginning, because nobody knew who she was or why she was a qualified pick.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | November 3, 2008

  459. You and others bashed Sarah Palin for being inexperienced and not giving access to reporters.

    My problems with Palin go far beyond that. For instance, what is this socialism business she is slinging at Obama? Were her policies toward the oil companies not socialist in nature? Is redistributing the oil wealth not socialist? When she slings mud over former Obama associations, what are we to make of her ties to the Alaska Independence Party? They are certainly at least as strong as Obama’s ties to Ayres.

    Obama hasn’t given a press conference or responded to press inquiries for over a month.

    I have seen him interviewed twice in the past week. But if I was in his shoes, I would play defense right now. Palin needed to play offense from the beginning, because nobody knew who she was or why she was a qualified pick.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | November 3, 2008

  460. You and others bashed Sarah Palin for being inexperienced and not giving access to reporters.

    My problems with Palin go far beyond that. For instance, what is this socialism business she is slinging at Obama? Were her policies toward the oil companies not socialist in nature? Is redistributing the oil wealth not socialist? When she slings mud over former Obama associations, what are we to make of her ties to the Alaska Independence Party? They are certainly at least as strong as Obama’s ties to Ayres.

    Obama hasn’t given a press conference or responded to press inquiries for over a month.

    I have seen him interviewed twice in the past week. But if I was in his shoes, I would play defense right now. Palin needed to play offense from the beginning, because nobody knew who she was or why she was a qualified pick.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | November 3, 2008

  461. You and others bashed Sarah Palin for being inexperienced and not giving access to reporters.

    My problems with Palin go far beyond that. For instance, what is this socialism business she is slinging at Obama? Were her policies toward the oil companies not socialist in nature? Is redistributing the oil wealth not socialist? When she slings mud over former Obama associations, what are we to make of her ties to the Alaska Independence Party? They are certainly at least as strong as Obama’s ties to Ayres.

    Obama hasn’t given a press conference or responded to press inquiries for over a month.

    I have seen him interviewed twice in the past week. But if I was in his shoes, I would play defense right now. Palin needed to play offense from the beginning, because nobody knew who she was or why she was a qualified pick.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | November 3, 2008

  462. You and others bashed Sarah Palin for being inexperienced and not giving access to reporters.

    My problems with Palin go far beyond that. For instance, what is this socialism business she is slinging at Obama? Were her policies toward the oil companies not socialist in nature? Is redistributing the oil wealth not socialist? When she slings mud over former Obama associations, what are we to make of her ties to the Alaska Independence Party? They are certainly at least as strong as Obama’s ties to Ayres.

    Obama hasn’t given a press conference or responded to press inquiries for over a month.

    I have seen him interviewed twice in the past week. But if I was in his shoes, I would play defense right now. Palin needed to play offense from the beginning, because nobody knew who she was or why she was a qualified pick.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | November 3, 2008

  463. You and others bashed Sarah Palin for being inexperienced and not giving access to reporters.

    My problems with Palin go far beyond that. For instance, what is this socialism business she is slinging at Obama? Were her policies toward the oil companies not socialist in nature? Is redistributing the oil wealth not socialist? When she slings mud over former Obama associations, what are we to make of her ties to the Alaska Independence Party? They are certainly at least as strong as Obama’s ties to Ayres.

    Obama hasn’t given a press conference or responded to press inquiries for over a month.

    I have seen him interviewed twice in the past week. But if I was in his shoes, I would play defense right now. Palin needed to play offense from the beginning, because nobody knew who she was or why she was a qualified pick.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | November 3, 2008

  464. You and others bashed Sarah Palin for being inexperienced and not giving access to reporters.My problems with Palin go far beyond that. For instance, what is this socialism business she is slinging at Obama? Were her policies toward the oil companies not socialist in nature? Is redistributing the oil wealth not socialist? When she slings mud over former Obama associations, what are we to make of her ties to the Alaska Independence Party? They are certainly at least as strong as Obama’s ties to Ayres.Obama hasn’t given a press conference or responded to press inquiries for over a month.I have seen him interviewed twice in the past week. But if I was in his shoes, I would play defense right now. Palin needed to play offense from the beginning, because nobody knew who she was or why she was a qualified pick.RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | November 3, 2008

  465. Odograph – it isn’t a choice between trout fishing and coal. It is possible to have both. I must also point out that mountaintop mining and valley fills are on PRIVATE property. The mining company owns the surface and the minerals underneath.

    On in-situ gasification, it would not be appropriate for the mountaintop reserves. These reserves are too close to the surface and not surrounded by cap rock, it would be difficult if not impossible to control the reaction and to keep the syngas contained. Rather you would look for deep unmineable reserves.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  466. Odograph – it isn’t a choice between trout fishing and coal. It is possible to have both. I must also point out that mountaintop mining and valley fills are on PRIVATE property. The mining company owns the surface and the minerals underneath.

    On in-situ gasification, it would not be appropriate for the mountaintop reserves. These reserves are too close to the surface and not surrounded by cap rock, it would be difficult if not impossible to control the reaction and to keep the syngas contained. Rather you would look for deep unmineable reserves.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  467. Odograph – it isn’t a choice between trout fishing and coal. It is possible to have both. I must also point out that mountaintop mining and valley fills are on PRIVATE property. The mining company owns the surface and the minerals underneath.

    On in-situ gasification, it would not be appropriate for the mountaintop reserves. These reserves are too close to the surface and not surrounded by cap rock, it would be difficult if not impossible to control the reaction and to keep the syngas contained. Rather you would look for deep unmineable reserves.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  468. Odograph – it isn’t a choice between trout fishing and coal. It is possible to have both. I must also point out that mountaintop mining and valley fills are on PRIVATE property. The mining company owns the surface and the minerals underneath.

    On in-situ gasification, it would not be appropriate for the mountaintop reserves. These reserves are too close to the surface and not surrounded by cap rock, it would be difficult if not impossible to control the reaction and to keep the syngas contained. Rather you would look for deep unmineable reserves.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  469. Odograph – it isn’t a choice between trout fishing and coal. It is possible to have both. I must also point out that mountaintop mining and valley fills are on PRIVATE property. The mining company owns the surface and the minerals underneath.

    On in-situ gasification, it would not be appropriate for the mountaintop reserves. These reserves are too close to the surface and not surrounded by cap rock, it would be difficult if not impossible to control the reaction and to keep the syngas contained. Rather you would look for deep unmineable reserves.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  470. Odograph – it isn’t a choice between trout fishing and coal. It is possible to have both. I must also point out that mountaintop mining and valley fills are on PRIVATE property. The mining company owns the surface and the minerals underneath.

    On in-situ gasification, it would not be appropriate for the mountaintop reserves. These reserves are too close to the surface and not surrounded by cap rock, it would be difficult if not impossible to control the reaction and to keep the syngas contained. Rather you would look for deep unmineable reserves.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  471. Odograph – it isn’t a choice between trout fishing and coal. It is possible to have both. I must also point out that mountaintop mining and valley fills are on PRIVATE property. The mining company owns the surface and the minerals underneath.

    On in-situ gasification, it would not be appropriate for the mountaintop reserves. These reserves are too close to the surface and not surrounded by cap rock, it would be difficult if not impossible to control the reaction and to keep the syngas contained. Rather you would look for deep unmineable reserves.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  472. Odograph – it isn’t a choice between trout fishing and coal. It is possible to have both. I must also point out that mountaintop mining and valley fills are on PRIVATE property. The mining company owns the surface and the minerals underneath. On in-situ gasification, it would not be appropriate for the mountaintop reserves. These reserves are too close to the surface and not surrounded by cap rock, it would be difficult if not impossible to control the reaction and to keep the syngas contained. Rather you would look for deep unmineable reserves.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  473. ‘When Obama talks about “bankrupting coal” or “skyrocketing electric prices”, or tells Joe the Plumber he wants to “spread the wealth around”, that is the REAL Obama.’

    Well first, look at those coal state electric rates again. Those folks have been exporting their pollution with 600 ft stacks for decades. They dragged their feet on SOx and NOx and particulates, and mercury, and greenhouse gases.

    Will it bankrupt them to adopt my California pollution footprint? Will raising their rates to something near my California rates look like a “skyrocket?”

    If the defense is that they should be able to pollute at low rates … because they are backwards or something … that’s just sad.

    On “spread the wealth” … compared to what, a $1T bailout? That is spreading the wealth pretty thick my friend.

    What do you want instead? The McCain plan going in the other direction? Privatized Social Security and 50 million retirees standing there with their pants down after a market crash?

    Man! You are so lucky that push did not pass.

    – odograph, soon to be ex-Republican and independent

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  474. ‘When Obama talks about “bankrupting coal” or “skyrocketing electric prices”, or tells Joe the Plumber he wants to “spread the wealth around”, that is the REAL Obama.’

    Well first, look at those coal state electric rates again. Those folks have been exporting their pollution with 600 ft stacks for decades. They dragged their feet on SOx and NOx and particulates, and mercury, and greenhouse gases.

    Will it bankrupt them to adopt my California pollution footprint? Will raising their rates to something near my California rates look like a “skyrocket?”

    If the defense is that they should be able to pollute at low rates … because they are backwards or something … that’s just sad.

    On “spread the wealth” … compared to what, a $1T bailout? That is spreading the wealth pretty thick my friend.

    What do you want instead? The McCain plan going in the other direction? Privatized Social Security and 50 million retirees standing there with their pants down after a market crash?

    Man! You are so lucky that push did not pass.

    – odograph, soon to be ex-Republican and independent

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  475. ‘When Obama talks about “bankrupting coal” or “skyrocketing electric prices”, or tells Joe the Plumber he wants to “spread the wealth around”, that is the REAL Obama.’

    Well first, look at those coal state electric rates again. Those folks have been exporting their pollution with 600 ft stacks for decades. They dragged their feet on SOx and NOx and particulates, and mercury, and greenhouse gases.

    Will it bankrupt them to adopt my California pollution footprint? Will raising their rates to something near my California rates look like a “skyrocket?”

    If the defense is that they should be able to pollute at low rates … because they are backwards or something … that’s just sad.

    On “spread the wealth” … compared to what, a $1T bailout? That is spreading the wealth pretty thick my friend.

    What do you want instead? The McCain plan going in the other direction? Privatized Social Security and 50 million retirees standing there with their pants down after a market crash?

    Man! You are so lucky that push did not pass.

    – odograph, soon to be ex-Republican and independent

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  476. ‘When Obama talks about “bankrupting coal” or “skyrocketing electric prices”, or tells Joe the Plumber he wants to “spread the wealth around”, that is the REAL Obama.’

    Well first, look at those coal state electric rates again. Those folks have been exporting their pollution with 600 ft stacks for decades. They dragged their feet on SOx and NOx and particulates, and mercury, and greenhouse gases.

    Will it bankrupt them to adopt my California pollution footprint? Will raising their rates to something near my California rates look like a “skyrocket?”

    If the defense is that they should be able to pollute at low rates … because they are backwards or something … that’s just sad.

    On “spread the wealth” … compared to what, a $1T bailout? That is spreading the wealth pretty thick my friend.

    What do you want instead? The McCain plan going in the other direction? Privatized Social Security and 50 million retirees standing there with their pants down after a market crash?

    Man! You are so lucky that push did not pass.

    – odograph, soon to be ex-Republican and independent

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  477. ‘When Obama talks about “bankrupting coal” or “skyrocketing electric prices”, or tells Joe the Plumber he wants to “spread the wealth around”, that is the REAL Obama.’

    Well first, look at those coal state electric rates again. Those folks have been exporting their pollution with 600 ft stacks for decades. They dragged their feet on SOx and NOx and particulates, and mercury, and greenhouse gases.

    Will it bankrupt them to adopt my California pollution footprint? Will raising their rates to something near my California rates look like a “skyrocket?”

    If the defense is that they should be able to pollute at low rates … because they are backwards or something … that’s just sad.

    On “spread the wealth” … compared to what, a $1T bailout? That is spreading the wealth pretty thick my friend.

    What do you want instead? The McCain plan going in the other direction? Privatized Social Security and 50 million retirees standing there with their pants down after a market crash?

    Man! You are so lucky that push did not pass.

    – odograph, soon to be ex-Republican and independent

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  478. ‘When Obama talks about “bankrupting coal” or “skyrocketing electric prices”, or tells Joe the Plumber he wants to “spread the wealth around”, that is the REAL Obama.’

    Well first, look at those coal state electric rates again. Those folks have been exporting their pollution with 600 ft stacks for decades. They dragged their feet on SOx and NOx and particulates, and mercury, and greenhouse gases.

    Will it bankrupt them to adopt my California pollution footprint? Will raising their rates to something near my California rates look like a “skyrocket?”

    If the defense is that they should be able to pollute at low rates … because they are backwards or something … that’s just sad.

    On “spread the wealth” … compared to what, a $1T bailout? That is spreading the wealth pretty thick my friend.

    What do you want instead? The McCain plan going in the other direction? Privatized Social Security and 50 million retirees standing there with their pants down after a market crash?

    Man! You are so lucky that push did not pass.

    – odograph, soon to be ex-Republican and independent

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  479. ‘When Obama talks about “bankrupting coal” or “skyrocketing electric prices”, or tells Joe the Plumber he wants to “spread the wealth around”, that is the REAL Obama.’

    Well first, look at those coal state electric rates again. Those folks have been exporting their pollution with 600 ft stacks for decades. They dragged their feet on SOx and NOx and particulates, and mercury, and greenhouse gases.

    Will it bankrupt them to adopt my California pollution footprint? Will raising their rates to something near my California rates look like a “skyrocket?”

    If the defense is that they should be able to pollute at low rates … because they are backwards or something … that’s just sad.

    On “spread the wealth” … compared to what, a $1T bailout? That is spreading the wealth pretty thick my friend.

    What do you want instead? The McCain plan going in the other direction? Privatized Social Security and 50 million retirees standing there with their pants down after a market crash?

    Man! You are so lucky that push did not pass.

    – odograph, soon to be ex-Republican and independent

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  480. ‘When Obama talks about “bankrupting coal” or “skyrocketing electric prices”, or tells Joe the Plumber he wants to “spread the wealth around”, that is the REAL Obama.’Well first, look at those coal state electric rates again. Those folks have been exporting their pollution with 600 ft stacks for decades. They dragged their feet on SOx and NOx and particulates, and mercury, and greenhouse gases.Will it bankrupt them to adopt my California pollution footprint? Will raising their rates to something near my California rates look like a “skyrocket?”If the defense is that they should be able to pollute at low rates … because they are backwards or something … that’s just sad.On “spread the wealth” … compared to what, a $1T bailout? That is spreading the wealth pretty thick my friend.What do you want instead? The McCain plan going in the other direction? Privatized Social Security and 50 million retirees standing there with their pants down after a market crash?Man! You are so lucky that push did not pass.- odograph, soon to be ex-Republican and independent

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  481. @king
    I happen to be a big fan of coal strip mining because it it much safer and more economical. When considering all the environmental impacts, I would rate coal generated electricity above solar thermal in the Mojave and PV anyplace. My conclusions are based on reading many LCA for generating electricity.
    The basic problem with wind and solar is it does not work. It is not sustainable. While the sources of energy is renewable but the equipment is not.
    I do support a conservative RPS (5%) and PTC for renewable energy. The way you make renewable energy work is by doing. Hopefully, the current renewable energy boom will result in producing electricity to years from now rather than another failed experiment.

    Biomass to electricity and ethanol has always worked it is just more expensive. All the biomass to electricity plants built in the 80s could not compete with natural gas, but now they have at least a $10/MWh advantage.

    I need to heat my house, I do not need to go trout fishing. However, I know that the plants I used to work at when I was younger released cleaner water than the river water that came in. I knew because we processed the water and measured the water before releasing it. It was a matter of public record. There was a popular trout steam at the power plant (between power plant and the feedlot before the city street runoff).

    On the other had, no doubt that Odograph, can find new reports that talk about all the tainted water release. Here the deal Odograph, it I lie on release permit I could go to jail. It would also be unethical. As far as I tell tell, journalists job is to sell papers. Politicians job is to get elected.

    Here is the problem for us voters. I do not like McCain’s record on energy. However, the other guy is clueless and is unlikely to have the guts to stand up to the Chicago machine. The good news is that course has been set by Bush.

    There is also free speech and people who know how to be heard. When the Capital mall becomes a parking lot for heavy equipment and a campground for unemployed coal miners, there are some limo riding slugs who wished the industry only had lobbyist.

    Comment by Kit P | November 3, 2008

  482. @king
    I happen to be a big fan of coal strip mining because it it much safer and more economical. When considering all the environmental impacts, I would rate coal generated electricity above solar thermal in the Mojave and PV anyplace. My conclusions are based on reading many LCA for generating electricity.
    The basic problem with wind and solar is it does not work. It is not sustainable. While the sources of energy is renewable but the equipment is not.
    I do support a conservative RPS (5%) and PTC for renewable energy. The way you make renewable energy work is by doing. Hopefully, the current renewable energy boom will result in producing electricity to years from now rather than another failed experiment.

    Biomass to electricity and ethanol has always worked it is just more expensive. All the biomass to electricity plants built in the 80s could not compete with natural gas, but now they have at least a $10/MWh advantage.

    I need to heat my house, I do not need to go trout fishing. However, I know that the plants I used to work at when I was younger released cleaner water than the river water that came in. I knew because we processed the water and measured the water before releasing it. It was a matter of public record. There was a popular trout steam at the power plant (between power plant and the feedlot before the city street runoff).

    On the other had, no doubt that Odograph, can find new reports that talk about all the tainted water release. Here the deal Odograph, it I lie on release permit I could go to jail. It would also be unethical. As far as I tell tell, journalists job is to sell papers. Politicians job is to get elected.

    Here is the problem for us voters. I do not like McCain’s record on energy. However, the other guy is clueless and is unlikely to have the guts to stand up to the Chicago machine. The good news is that course has been set by Bush.

    There is also free speech and people who know how to be heard. When the Capital mall becomes a parking lot for heavy equipment and a campground for unemployed coal miners, there are some limo riding slugs who wished the industry only had lobbyist.

    Comment by Kit P | November 3, 2008

  483. @king
    I happen to be a big fan of coal strip mining because it it much safer and more economical. When considering all the environmental impacts, I would rate coal generated electricity above solar thermal in the Mojave and PV anyplace. My conclusions are based on reading many LCA for generating electricity.
    The basic problem with wind and solar is it does not work. It is not sustainable. While the sources of energy is renewable but the equipment is not.
    I do support a conservative RPS (5%) and PTC for renewable energy. The way you make renewable energy work is by doing. Hopefully, the current renewable energy boom will result in producing electricity to years from now rather than another failed experiment.

    Biomass to electricity and ethanol has always worked it is just more expensive. All the biomass to electricity plants built in the 80s could not compete with natural gas, but now they have at least a $10/MWh advantage.

    I need to heat my house, I do not need to go trout fishing. However, I know that the plants I used to work at when I was younger released cleaner water than the river water that came in. I knew because we processed the water and measured the water before releasing it. It was a matter of public record. There was a popular trout steam at the power plant (between power plant and the feedlot before the city street runoff).

    On the other had, no doubt that Odograph, can find new reports that talk about all the tainted water release. Here the deal Odograph, it I lie on release permit I could go to jail. It would also be unethical. As far as I tell tell, journalists job is to sell papers. Politicians job is to get elected.

    Here is the problem for us voters. I do not like McCain’s record on energy. However, the other guy is clueless and is unlikely to have the guts to stand up to the Chicago machine. The good news is that course has been set by Bush.

    There is also free speech and people who know how to be heard. When the Capital mall becomes a parking lot for heavy equipment and a campground for unemployed coal miners, there are some limo riding slugs who wished the industry only had lobbyist.

    Comment by Kit P | November 3, 2008

  484. @king
    I happen to be a big fan of coal strip mining because it it much safer and more economical. When considering all the environmental impacts, I would rate coal generated electricity above solar thermal in the Mojave and PV anyplace. My conclusions are based on reading many LCA for generating electricity.
    The basic problem with wind and solar is it does not work. It is not sustainable. While the sources of energy is renewable but the equipment is not.
    I do support a conservative RPS (5%) and PTC for renewable energy. The way you make renewable energy work is by doing. Hopefully, the current renewable energy boom will result in producing electricity to years from now rather than another failed experiment.

    Biomass to electricity and ethanol has always worked it is just more expensive. All the biomass to electricity plants built in the 80s could not compete with natural gas, but now they have at least a $10/MWh advantage.

    I need to heat my house, I do not need to go trout fishing. However, I know that the plants I used to work at when I was younger released cleaner water than the river water that came in. I knew because we processed the water and measured the water before releasing it. It was a matter of public record. There was a popular trout steam at the power plant (between power plant and the feedlot before the city street runoff).

    On the other had, no doubt that Odograph, can find new reports that talk about all the tainted water release. Here the deal Odograph, it I lie on release permit I could go to jail. It would also be unethical. As far as I tell tell, journalists job is to sell papers. Politicians job is to get elected.

    Here is the problem for us voters. I do not like McCain’s record on energy. However, the other guy is clueless and is unlikely to have the guts to stand up to the Chicago machine. The good news is that course has been set by Bush.

    There is also free speech and people who know how to be heard. When the Capital mall becomes a parking lot for heavy equipment and a campground for unemployed coal miners, there are some limo riding slugs who wished the industry only had lobbyist.

    Comment by Kit P | November 3, 2008

  485. @king
    I happen to be a big fan of coal strip mining because it it much safer and more economical. When considering all the environmental impacts, I would rate coal generated electricity above solar thermal in the Mojave and PV anyplace. My conclusions are based on reading many LCA for generating electricity.
    The basic problem with wind and solar is it does not work. It is not sustainable. While the sources of energy is renewable but the equipment is not.
    I do support a conservative RPS (5%) and PTC for renewable energy. The way you make renewable energy work is by doing. Hopefully, the current renewable energy boom will result in producing electricity to years from now rather than another failed experiment.

    Biomass to electricity and ethanol has always worked it is just more expensive. All the biomass to electricity plants built in the 80s could not compete with natural gas, but now they have at least a $10/MWh advantage.

    I need to heat my house, I do not need to go trout fishing. However, I know that the plants I used to work at when I was younger released cleaner water than the river water that came in. I knew because we processed the water and measured the water before releasing it. It was a matter of public record. There was a popular trout steam at the power plant (between power plant and the feedlot before the city street runoff).

    On the other had, no doubt that Odograph, can find new reports that talk about all the tainted water release. Here the deal Odograph, it I lie on release permit I could go to jail. It would also be unethical. As far as I tell tell, journalists job is to sell papers. Politicians job is to get elected.

    Here is the problem for us voters. I do not like McCain’s record on energy. However, the other guy is clueless and is unlikely to have the guts to stand up to the Chicago machine. The good news is that course has been set by Bush.

    There is also free speech and people who know how to be heard. When the Capital mall becomes a parking lot for heavy equipment and a campground for unemployed coal miners, there are some limo riding slugs who wished the industry only had lobbyist.

    Comment by Kit P | November 3, 2008

  486. @king
    I happen to be a big fan of coal strip mining because it it much safer and more economical. When considering all the environmental impacts, I would rate coal generated electricity above solar thermal in the Mojave and PV anyplace. My conclusions are based on reading many LCA for generating electricity.
    The basic problem with wind and solar is it does not work. It is not sustainable. While the sources of energy is renewable but the equipment is not.
    I do support a conservative RPS (5%) and PTC for renewable energy. The way you make renewable energy work is by doing. Hopefully, the current renewable energy boom will result in producing electricity to years from now rather than another failed experiment.

    Biomass to electricity and ethanol has always worked it is just more expensive. All the biomass to electricity plants built in the 80s could not compete with natural gas, but now they have at least a $10/MWh advantage.

    I need to heat my house, I do not need to go trout fishing. However, I know that the plants I used to work at when I was younger released cleaner water than the river water that came in. I knew because we processed the water and measured the water before releasing it. It was a matter of public record. There was a popular trout steam at the power plant (between power plant and the feedlot before the city street runoff).

    On the other had, no doubt that Odograph, can find new reports that talk about all the tainted water release. Here the deal Odograph, it I lie on release permit I could go to jail. It would also be unethical. As far as I tell tell, journalists job is to sell papers. Politicians job is to get elected.

    Here is the problem for us voters. I do not like McCain’s record on energy. However, the other guy is clueless and is unlikely to have the guts to stand up to the Chicago machine. The good news is that course has been set by Bush.

    There is also free speech and people who know how to be heard. When the Capital mall becomes a parking lot for heavy equipment and a campground for unemployed coal miners, there are some limo riding slugs who wished the industry only had lobbyist.

    Comment by Kit P | November 3, 2008

  487. @king
    I happen to be a big fan of coal strip mining because it it much safer and more economical. When considering all the environmental impacts, I would rate coal generated electricity above solar thermal in the Mojave and PV anyplace. My conclusions are based on reading many LCA for generating electricity.
    The basic problem with wind and solar is it does not work. It is not sustainable. While the sources of energy is renewable but the equipment is not.
    I do support a conservative RPS (5%) and PTC for renewable energy. The way you make renewable energy work is by doing. Hopefully, the current renewable energy boom will result in producing electricity to years from now rather than another failed experiment.

    Biomass to electricity and ethanol has always worked it is just more expensive. All the biomass to electricity plants built in the 80s could not compete with natural gas, but now they have at least a $10/MWh advantage.

    I need to heat my house, I do not need to go trout fishing. However, I know that the plants I used to work at when I was younger released cleaner water than the river water that came in. I knew because we processed the water and measured the water before releasing it. It was a matter of public record. There was a popular trout steam at the power plant (between power plant and the feedlot before the city street runoff).

    On the other had, no doubt that Odograph, can find new reports that talk about all the tainted water release. Here the deal Odograph, it I lie on release permit I could go to jail. It would also be unethical. As far as I tell tell, journalists job is to sell papers. Politicians job is to get elected.

    Here is the problem for us voters. I do not like McCain’s record on energy. However, the other guy is clueless and is unlikely to have the guts to stand up to the Chicago machine. The good news is that course has been set by Bush.

    There is also free speech and people who know how to be heard. When the Capital mall becomes a parking lot for heavy equipment and a campground for unemployed coal miners, there are some limo riding slugs who wished the industry only had lobbyist.

    Comment by Kit P | November 3, 2008

  488. @kingI happen to be a big fan of coal strip mining because it it much safer and more economical. When considering all the environmental impacts, I would rate coal generated electricity above solar thermal in the Mojave and PV anyplace. My conclusions are based on reading many LCA for generating electricity. The basic problem with wind and solar is it does not work. It is not sustainable. While the sources of energy is renewable but the equipment is not.I do support a conservative RPS (5%) and PTC for renewable energy. The way you make renewable energy work is by doing. Hopefully, the current renewable energy boom will result in producing electricity to years from now rather than another failed experiment.Biomass to electricity and ethanol has always worked it is just more expensive. All the biomass to electricity plants built in the 80s could not compete with natural gas, but now they have at least a $10/MWh advantage.I need to heat my house, I do not need to go trout fishing. However, I know that the plants I used to work at when I was younger released cleaner water than the river water that came in. I knew because we processed the water and measured the water before releasing it. It was a matter of public record. There was a popular trout steam at the power plant (between power plant and the feedlot before the city street runoff). On the other had, no doubt that Odograph, can find new reports that talk about all the tainted water release. Here the deal Odograph, it I lie on release permit I could go to jail. It would also be unethical. As far as I tell tell, journalists job is to sell papers. Politicians job is to get elected.Here is the problem for us voters. I do not like McCain’s record on energy. However, the other guy is clueless and is unlikely to have the guts to stand up to the Chicago machine. The good news is that course has been set by Bush. There is also free speech and people who know how to be heard. When the Capital mall becomes a parking lot for heavy equipment and a campground for unemployed coal miners, there are some limo riding slugs who wished the industry only had lobbyist.

    Comment by Kit P | November 3, 2008

  489. Robert – Palin CAN sling the socialist label at Obama. The citizens of Alaska own the mineral wealth on state lands. Energy companies are granted a right to explore and produce on these lands. It isn’t socialism to negotiate a better deal. If you rent an apartment from me it isn’t socialism if I choose to raise your rent.

    When Obama talks about “spreading the wealth around” to Joe the Plumber he is advocating using the power of government to take something it doesn’t own and give it to someone else. Huge difference.

    Palin’s ties to the AIP are passing at best. IF there was hard evidence she were an AIP member or strongly supported them you would have heard about it by now.

    Obama was a member of Wright’s church for 20 years and his associations with Ayers are numerous and deep. He isn’t just some guy in the neighborhood. Obama’s friends and his pastor preach a marxist/socialist world view, a view that Obama himself seems to share at least in part when you look at his interviews and writings.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  490. Robert – Palin CAN sling the socialist label at Obama. The citizens of Alaska own the mineral wealth on state lands. Energy companies are granted a right to explore and produce on these lands. It isn’t socialism to negotiate a better deal. If you rent an apartment from me it isn’t socialism if I choose to raise your rent.

    When Obama talks about “spreading the wealth around” to Joe the Plumber he is advocating using the power of government to take something it doesn’t own and give it to someone else. Huge difference.

    Palin’s ties to the AIP are passing at best. IF there was hard evidence she were an AIP member or strongly supported them you would have heard about it by now.

    Obama was a member of Wright’s church for 20 years and his associations with Ayers are numerous and deep. He isn’t just some guy in the neighborhood. Obama’s friends and his pastor preach a marxist/socialist world view, a view that Obama himself seems to share at least in part when you look at his interviews and writings.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  491. Robert – Palin CAN sling the socialist label at Obama. The citizens of Alaska own the mineral wealth on state lands. Energy companies are granted a right to explore and produce on these lands. It isn’t socialism to negotiate a better deal. If you rent an apartment from me it isn’t socialism if I choose to raise your rent.

    When Obama talks about “spreading the wealth around” to Joe the Plumber he is advocating using the power of government to take something it doesn’t own and give it to someone else. Huge difference.

    Palin’s ties to the AIP are passing at best. IF there was hard evidence she were an AIP member or strongly supported them you would have heard about it by now.

    Obama was a member of Wright’s church for 20 years and his associations with Ayers are numerous and deep. He isn’t just some guy in the neighborhood. Obama’s friends and his pastor preach a marxist/socialist world view, a view that Obama himself seems to share at least in part when you look at his interviews and writings.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  492. Robert – Palin CAN sling the socialist label at Obama. The citizens of Alaska own the mineral wealth on state lands. Energy companies are granted a right to explore and produce on these lands. It isn’t socialism to negotiate a better deal. If you rent an apartment from me it isn’t socialism if I choose to raise your rent.

    When Obama talks about “spreading the wealth around” to Joe the Plumber he is advocating using the power of government to take something it doesn’t own and give it to someone else. Huge difference.

    Palin’s ties to the AIP are passing at best. IF there was hard evidence she were an AIP member or strongly supported them you would have heard about it by now.

    Obama was a member of Wright’s church for 20 years and his associations with Ayers are numerous and deep. He isn’t just some guy in the neighborhood. Obama’s friends and his pastor preach a marxist/socialist world view, a view that Obama himself seems to share at least in part when you look at his interviews and writings.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  493. Robert – Palin CAN sling the socialist label at Obama. The citizens of Alaska own the mineral wealth on state lands. Energy companies are granted a right to explore and produce on these lands. It isn’t socialism to negotiate a better deal. If you rent an apartment from me it isn’t socialism if I choose to raise your rent.

    When Obama talks about “spreading the wealth around” to Joe the Plumber he is advocating using the power of government to take something it doesn’t own and give it to someone else. Huge difference.

    Palin’s ties to the AIP are passing at best. IF there was hard evidence she were an AIP member or strongly supported them you would have heard about it by now.

    Obama was a member of Wright’s church for 20 years and his associations with Ayers are numerous and deep. He isn’t just some guy in the neighborhood. Obama’s friends and his pastor preach a marxist/socialist world view, a view that Obama himself seems to share at least in part when you look at his interviews and writings.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  494. Robert – Palin CAN sling the socialist label at Obama. The citizens of Alaska own the mineral wealth on state lands. Energy companies are granted a right to explore and produce on these lands. It isn’t socialism to negotiate a better deal. If you rent an apartment from me it isn’t socialism if I choose to raise your rent.

    When Obama talks about “spreading the wealth around” to Joe the Plumber he is advocating using the power of government to take something it doesn’t own and give it to someone else. Huge difference.

    Palin’s ties to the AIP are passing at best. IF there was hard evidence she were an AIP member or strongly supported them you would have heard about it by now.

    Obama was a member of Wright’s church for 20 years and his associations with Ayers are numerous and deep. He isn’t just some guy in the neighborhood. Obama’s friends and his pastor preach a marxist/socialist world view, a view that Obama himself seems to share at least in part when you look at his interviews and writings.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  495. Robert – Palin CAN sling the socialist label at Obama. The citizens of Alaska own the mineral wealth on state lands. Energy companies are granted a right to explore and produce on these lands. It isn’t socialism to negotiate a better deal. If you rent an apartment from me it isn’t socialism if I choose to raise your rent.

    When Obama talks about “spreading the wealth around” to Joe the Plumber he is advocating using the power of government to take something it doesn’t own and give it to someone else. Huge difference.

    Palin’s ties to the AIP are passing at best. IF there was hard evidence she were an AIP member or strongly supported them you would have heard about it by now.

    Obama was a member of Wright’s church for 20 years and his associations with Ayers are numerous and deep. He isn’t just some guy in the neighborhood. Obama’s friends and his pastor preach a marxist/socialist world view, a view that Obama himself seems to share at least in part when you look at his interviews and writings.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  496. Robert – Palin CAN sling the socialist label at Obama. The citizens of Alaska own the mineral wealth on state lands. Energy companies are granted a right to explore and produce on these lands. It isn’t socialism to negotiate a better deal. If you rent an apartment from me it isn’t socialism if I choose to raise your rent.When Obama talks about “spreading the wealth around” to Joe the Plumber he is advocating using the power of government to take something it doesn’t own and give it to someone else. Huge difference. Palin’s ties to the AIP are passing at best. IF there was hard evidence she were an AIP member or strongly supported them you would have heard about it by now. Obama was a member of Wright’s church for 20 years and his associations with Ayers are numerous and deep. He isn’t just some guy in the neighborhood. Obama’s friends and his pastor preach a marxist/socialist world view, a view that Obama himself seems to share at least in part when you look at his interviews and writings.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  497. “Odograph – it isn’t a choice between trout fishing and coal. It is possible to have both. I must also point out that mountaintop mining and valley fills are on PRIVATE property. The mining company owns the surface and the minerals underneath. “

    You’ve heard the “two earths” claims? That is, we use our natural resources at a rate which would be sustainable if we had twice as many earths as we do.

    The number of trout streams in the US declines every year. In theory we could keep “enough” but the anti-enviros don’t offer that math. They like better the idea that every environmental claim is nuttery and any single stream reduced is inconsequential.

    That’s what adds up to … well what I live in … a city that used to have steelhead runs and grizzly bears. No longer.

    I’ve lived long enough to see that expanding and expanding, haven’t you?

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  498. “Odograph – it isn’t a choice between trout fishing and coal. It is possible to have both. I must also point out that mountaintop mining and valley fills are on PRIVATE property. The mining company owns the surface and the minerals underneath. “

    You’ve heard the “two earths” claims? That is, we use our natural resources at a rate which would be sustainable if we had twice as many earths as we do.

    The number of trout streams in the US declines every year. In theory we could keep “enough” but the anti-enviros don’t offer that math. They like better the idea that every environmental claim is nuttery and any single stream reduced is inconsequential.

    That’s what adds up to … well what I live in … a city that used to have steelhead runs and grizzly bears. No longer.

    I’ve lived long enough to see that expanding and expanding, haven’t you?

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  499. “Odograph – it isn’t a choice between trout fishing and coal. It is possible to have both. I must also point out that mountaintop mining and valley fills are on PRIVATE property. The mining company owns the surface and the minerals underneath. “

    You’ve heard the “two earths” claims? That is, we use our natural resources at a rate which would be sustainable if we had twice as many earths as we do.

    The number of trout streams in the US declines every year. In theory we could keep “enough” but the anti-enviros don’t offer that math. They like better the idea that every environmental claim is nuttery and any single stream reduced is inconsequential.

    That’s what adds up to … well what I live in … a city that used to have steelhead runs and grizzly bears. No longer.

    I’ve lived long enough to see that expanding and expanding, haven’t you?

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  500. “Odograph – it isn’t a choice between trout fishing and coal. It is possible to have both. I must also point out that mountaintop mining and valley fills are on PRIVATE property. The mining company owns the surface and the minerals underneath. “

    You’ve heard the “two earths” claims? That is, we use our natural resources at a rate which would be sustainable if we had twice as many earths as we do.

    The number of trout streams in the US declines every year. In theory we could keep “enough” but the anti-enviros don’t offer that math. They like better the idea that every environmental claim is nuttery and any single stream reduced is inconsequential.

    That’s what adds up to … well what I live in … a city that used to have steelhead runs and grizzly bears. No longer.

    I’ve lived long enough to see that expanding and expanding, haven’t you?

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  501. “Odograph – it isn’t a choice between trout fishing and coal. It is possible to have both. I must also point out that mountaintop mining and valley fills are on PRIVATE property. The mining company owns the surface and the minerals underneath. “

    You’ve heard the “two earths” claims? That is, we use our natural resources at a rate which would be sustainable if we had twice as many earths as we do.

    The number of trout streams in the US declines every year. In theory we could keep “enough” but the anti-enviros don’t offer that math. They like better the idea that every environmental claim is nuttery and any single stream reduced is inconsequential.

    That’s what adds up to … well what I live in … a city that used to have steelhead runs and grizzly bears. No longer.

    I’ve lived long enough to see that expanding and expanding, haven’t you?

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  502. “Odograph – it isn’t a choice between trout fishing and coal. It is possible to have both. I must also point out that mountaintop mining and valley fills are on PRIVATE property. The mining company owns the surface and the minerals underneath. “

    You’ve heard the “two earths” claims? That is, we use our natural resources at a rate which would be sustainable if we had twice as many earths as we do.

    The number of trout streams in the US declines every year. In theory we could keep “enough” but the anti-enviros don’t offer that math. They like better the idea that every environmental claim is nuttery and any single stream reduced is inconsequential.

    That’s what adds up to … well what I live in … a city that used to have steelhead runs and grizzly bears. No longer.

    I’ve lived long enough to see that expanding and expanding, haven’t you?

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  503. “Odograph – it isn’t a choice between trout fishing and coal. It is possible to have both. I must also point out that mountaintop mining and valley fills are on PRIVATE property. The mining company owns the surface and the minerals underneath. “

    You’ve heard the “two earths” claims? That is, we use our natural resources at a rate which would be sustainable if we had twice as many earths as we do.

    The number of trout streams in the US declines every year. In theory we could keep “enough” but the anti-enviros don’t offer that math. They like better the idea that every environmental claim is nuttery and any single stream reduced is inconsequential.

    That’s what adds up to … well what I live in … a city that used to have steelhead runs and grizzly bears. No longer.

    I’ve lived long enough to see that expanding and expanding, haven’t you?

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  504. “Odograph – it isn’t a choice between trout fishing and coal. It is possible to have both. I must also point out that mountaintop mining and valley fills are on PRIVATE property. The mining company owns the surface and the minerals underneath. “You’ve heard the “two earths” claims? That is, we use our natural resources at a rate which would be sustainable if we had twice as many earths as we do.The number of trout streams in the US declines every year. In theory we could keep “enough” but the anti-enviros don’t offer that math. They like better the idea that every environmental claim is nuttery and any single stream reduced is inconsequential.That’s what adds up to … well what I live in … a city that used to have steelhead runs and grizzly bears. No longer.I’ve lived long enough to see that expanding and expanding, haven’t you?- odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  505. “I need to heat my house, I do not need to go trout fishing. However, I know that the plants I used to work at when I was younger released cleaner water than the river water that came in. I knew because we processed the water and measured the water before releasing it. It was a matter of public record. There was a popular trout steam at the power plant (between power plant and the feedlot before the city street runoff). “

    Strawman argument, because we aren’t making anywhere near efficient use of our energies.

    People heat barely insulated houses with $0.05/kwh electricity and then complain that they need more coal to keep the costs down.

    Get everyone in a Passiv House first, and then I might believe you.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  506. “I need to heat my house, I do not need to go trout fishing. However, I know that the plants I used to work at when I was younger released cleaner water than the river water that came in. I knew because we processed the water and measured the water before releasing it. It was a matter of public record. There was a popular trout steam at the power plant (between power plant and the feedlot before the city street runoff). “

    Strawman argument, because we aren’t making anywhere near efficient use of our energies.

    People heat barely insulated houses with $0.05/kwh electricity and then complain that they need more coal to keep the costs down.

    Get everyone in a Passiv House first, and then I might believe you.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  507. “I need to heat my house, I do not need to go trout fishing. However, I know that the plants I used to work at when I was younger released cleaner water than the river water that came in. I knew because we processed the water and measured the water before releasing it. It was a matter of public record. There was a popular trout steam at the power plant (between power plant and the feedlot before the city street runoff). “

    Strawman argument, because we aren’t making anywhere near efficient use of our energies.

    People heat barely insulated houses with $0.05/kwh electricity and then complain that they need more coal to keep the costs down.

    Get everyone in a Passiv House first, and then I might believe you.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  508. “I need to heat my house, I do not need to go trout fishing. However, I know that the plants I used to work at when I was younger released cleaner water than the river water that came in. I knew because we processed the water and measured the water before releasing it. It was a matter of public record. There was a popular trout steam at the power plant (between power plant and the feedlot before the city street runoff). “

    Strawman argument, because we aren’t making anywhere near efficient use of our energies.

    People heat barely insulated houses with $0.05/kwh electricity and then complain that they need more coal to keep the costs down.

    Get everyone in a Passiv House first, and then I might believe you.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  509. “I need to heat my house, I do not need to go trout fishing. However, I know that the plants I used to work at when I was younger released cleaner water than the river water that came in. I knew because we processed the water and measured the water before releasing it. It was a matter of public record. There was a popular trout steam at the power plant (between power plant and the feedlot before the city street runoff). “

    Strawman argument, because we aren’t making anywhere near efficient use of our energies.

    People heat barely insulated houses with $0.05/kwh electricity and then complain that they need more coal to keep the costs down.

    Get everyone in a Passiv House first, and then I might believe you.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  510. “I need to heat my house, I do not need to go trout fishing. However, I know that the plants I used to work at when I was younger released cleaner water than the river water that came in. I knew because we processed the water and measured the water before releasing it. It was a matter of public record. There was a popular trout steam at the power plant (between power plant and the feedlot before the city street runoff). “

    Strawman argument, because we aren’t making anywhere near efficient use of our energies.

    People heat barely insulated houses with $0.05/kwh electricity and then complain that they need more coal to keep the costs down.

    Get everyone in a Passiv House first, and then I might believe you.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  511. “I need to heat my house, I do not need to go trout fishing. However, I know that the plants I used to work at when I was younger released cleaner water than the river water that came in. I knew because we processed the water and measured the water before releasing it. It was a matter of public record. There was a popular trout steam at the power plant (between power plant and the feedlot before the city street runoff). “

    Strawman argument, because we aren’t making anywhere near efficient use of our energies.

    People heat barely insulated houses with $0.05/kwh electricity and then complain that they need more coal to keep the costs down.

    Get everyone in a Passiv House first, and then I might believe you.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  512. “I need to heat my house, I do not need to go trout fishing. However, I know that the plants I used to work at when I was younger released cleaner water than the river water that came in. I knew because we processed the water and measured the water before releasing it. It was a matter of public record. There was a popular trout steam at the power plant (between power plant and the feedlot before the city street runoff). “Strawman argument, because we aren’t making anywhere near efficient use of our energies.People heat barely insulated houses with $0.05/kwh electricity and then complain that they need more coal to keep the costs down.Get everyone in a Passiv House first, and then I might believe you.- odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  513. It isn’t socialism to negotiate a better deal.

    Is that what she did? I thought she just raised the tax rates. How is what she did different than what Chavez did?

    When Obama talks about “spreading the wealth around”

    Of course there is video of McCain saying essentially the same thing. That’s my point: Palin and McCain are throwing stones from a glass house.

    IF there was hard evidence she were an AIP member or strongly supported them you would have heard about it by now.

    She is married to a former member, and addressed their convention not too long ago in positive terms. That’s stronger ties than Obama has to Ayers based on what I have seen.

    I think you are using different standards here for the different candidates.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | November 3, 2008

  514. It isn’t socialism to negotiate a better deal.

    Is that what she did? I thought she just raised the tax rates. How is what she did different than what Chavez did?

    When Obama talks about “spreading the wealth around”

    Of course there is video of McCain saying essentially the same thing. That’s my point: Palin and McCain are throwing stones from a glass house.

    IF there was hard evidence she were an AIP member or strongly supported them you would have heard about it by now.

    She is married to a former member, and addressed their convention not too long ago in positive terms. That’s stronger ties than Obama has to Ayers based on what I have seen.

    I think you are using different standards here for the different candidates.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | November 3, 2008

  515. It isn’t socialism to negotiate a better deal.

    Is that what she did? I thought she just raised the tax rates. How is what she did different than what Chavez did?

    When Obama talks about “spreading the wealth around”

    Of course there is video of McCain saying essentially the same thing. That’s my point: Palin and McCain are throwing stones from a glass house.

    IF there was hard evidence she were an AIP member or strongly supported them you would have heard about it by now.

    She is married to a former member, and addressed their convention not too long ago in positive terms. That’s stronger ties than Obama has to Ayers based on what I have seen.

    I think you are using different standards here for the different candidates.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | November 3, 2008

  516. It isn’t socialism to negotiate a better deal.

    Is that what she did? I thought she just raised the tax rates. How is what she did different than what Chavez did?

    When Obama talks about “spreading the wealth around”

    Of course there is video of McCain saying essentially the same thing. That’s my point: Palin and McCain are throwing stones from a glass house.

    IF there was hard evidence she were an AIP member or strongly supported them you would have heard about it by now.

    She is married to a former member, and addressed their convention not too long ago in positive terms. That’s stronger ties than Obama has to Ayers based on what I have seen.

    I think you are using different standards here for the different candidates.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | November 3, 2008

  517. It isn’t socialism to negotiate a better deal.

    Is that what she did? I thought she just raised the tax rates. How is what she did different than what Chavez did?

    When Obama talks about “spreading the wealth around”

    Of course there is video of McCain saying essentially the same thing. That’s my point: Palin and McCain are throwing stones from a glass house.

    IF there was hard evidence she were an AIP member or strongly supported them you would have heard about it by now.

    She is married to a former member, and addressed their convention not too long ago in positive terms. That’s stronger ties than Obama has to Ayers based on what I have seen.

    I think you are using different standards here for the different candidates.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | November 3, 2008

  518. It isn’t socialism to negotiate a better deal.

    Is that what she did? I thought she just raised the tax rates. How is what she did different than what Chavez did?

    When Obama talks about “spreading the wealth around”

    Of course there is video of McCain saying essentially the same thing. That’s my point: Palin and McCain are throwing stones from a glass house.

    IF there was hard evidence she were an AIP member or strongly supported them you would have heard about it by now.

    She is married to a former member, and addressed their convention not too long ago in positive terms. That’s stronger ties than Obama has to Ayers based on what I have seen.

    I think you are using different standards here for the different candidates.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | November 3, 2008

  519. It isn’t socialism to negotiate a better deal.

    Is that what she did? I thought she just raised the tax rates. How is what she did different than what Chavez did?

    When Obama talks about “spreading the wealth around”

    Of course there is video of McCain saying essentially the same thing. That’s my point: Palin and McCain are throwing stones from a glass house.

    IF there was hard evidence she were an AIP member or strongly supported them you would have heard about it by now.

    She is married to a former member, and addressed their convention not too long ago in positive terms. That’s stronger ties than Obama has to Ayers based on what I have seen.

    I think you are using different standards here for the different candidates.

    RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | November 3, 2008

  520. It isn’t socialism to negotiate a better deal.Is that what she did? I thought she just raised the tax rates. How is what she did different than what Chavez did? When Obama talks about “spreading the wealth around”Of course there is video of McCain saying essentially the same thing. That’s my point: Palin and McCain are throwing stones from a glass house.IF there was hard evidence she were an AIP member or strongly supported them you would have heard about it by now. She is married to a former member, and addressed their convention not too long ago in positive terms. That’s stronger ties than Obama has to Ayers based on what I have seen.I think you are using different standards here for the different candidates. RR

    Comment by Robert Rapier | November 3, 2008

  521. Those folks have been exporting their pollution with 600 ft stacks for decades. They dragged their feet on SOx and NOx and particulates, and mercury, and greenhouse gases.

    Not true, the plants comply with the Clean Air Act. Many coal fired power plants switched to lower sulfur coal to avoid installing post combustion treating.

    Greenhouse gases are NOT pollutants under the law, despite what you might think. So there is no foot dragging. Now you are just being emotional and silly.

    As for bailing out the financial community, government helped to create the problem, partly through Fannie and Freddie and packaging up mortgaged back securities. I would prefer that the Gov’t be out of the banking system altogether. I’d prefer the Gov’t to stay out of the financial system. I’ve never liked GSEs.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  522. Those folks have been exporting their pollution with 600 ft stacks for decades. They dragged their feet on SOx and NOx and particulates, and mercury, and greenhouse gases.

    Not true, the plants comply with the Clean Air Act. Many coal fired power plants switched to lower sulfur coal to avoid installing post combustion treating.

    Greenhouse gases are NOT pollutants under the law, despite what you might think. So there is no foot dragging. Now you are just being emotional and silly.

    As for bailing out the financial community, government helped to create the problem, partly through Fannie and Freddie and packaging up mortgaged back securities. I would prefer that the Gov’t be out of the banking system altogether. I’d prefer the Gov’t to stay out of the financial system. I’ve never liked GSEs.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  523. Those folks have been exporting their pollution with 600 ft stacks for decades. They dragged their feet on SOx and NOx and particulates, and mercury, and greenhouse gases.

    Not true, the plants comply with the Clean Air Act. Many coal fired power plants switched to lower sulfur coal to avoid installing post combustion treating.

    Greenhouse gases are NOT pollutants under the law, despite what you might think. So there is no foot dragging. Now you are just being emotional and silly.

    As for bailing out the financial community, government helped to create the problem, partly through Fannie and Freddie and packaging up mortgaged back securities. I would prefer that the Gov’t be out of the banking system altogether. I’d prefer the Gov’t to stay out of the financial system. I’ve never liked GSEs.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  524. Those folks have been exporting their pollution with 600 ft stacks for decades. They dragged their feet on SOx and NOx and particulates, and mercury, and greenhouse gases.

    Not true, the plants comply with the Clean Air Act. Many coal fired power plants switched to lower sulfur coal to avoid installing post combustion treating.

    Greenhouse gases are NOT pollutants under the law, despite what you might think. So there is no foot dragging. Now you are just being emotional and silly.

    As for bailing out the financial community, government helped to create the problem, partly through Fannie and Freddie and packaging up mortgaged back securities. I would prefer that the Gov’t be out of the banking system altogether. I’d prefer the Gov’t to stay out of the financial system. I’ve never liked GSEs.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  525. Those folks have been exporting their pollution with 600 ft stacks for decades. They dragged their feet on SOx and NOx and particulates, and mercury, and greenhouse gases.

    Not true, the plants comply with the Clean Air Act. Many coal fired power plants switched to lower sulfur coal to avoid installing post combustion treating.

    Greenhouse gases are NOT pollutants under the law, despite what you might think. So there is no foot dragging. Now you are just being emotional and silly.

    As for bailing out the financial community, government helped to create the problem, partly through Fannie and Freddie and packaging up mortgaged back securities. I would prefer that the Gov’t be out of the banking system altogether. I’d prefer the Gov’t to stay out of the financial system. I’ve never liked GSEs.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  526. Those folks have been exporting their pollution with 600 ft stacks for decades. They dragged their feet on SOx and NOx and particulates, and mercury, and greenhouse gases.

    Not true, the plants comply with the Clean Air Act. Many coal fired power plants switched to lower sulfur coal to avoid installing post combustion treating.

    Greenhouse gases are NOT pollutants under the law, despite what you might think. So there is no foot dragging. Now you are just being emotional and silly.

    As for bailing out the financial community, government helped to create the problem, partly through Fannie and Freddie and packaging up mortgaged back securities. I would prefer that the Gov’t be out of the banking system altogether. I’d prefer the Gov’t to stay out of the financial system. I’ve never liked GSEs.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  527. Those folks have been exporting their pollution with 600 ft stacks for decades. They dragged their feet on SOx and NOx and particulates, and mercury, and greenhouse gases.

    Not true, the plants comply with the Clean Air Act. Many coal fired power plants switched to lower sulfur coal to avoid installing post combustion treating.

    Greenhouse gases are NOT pollutants under the law, despite what you might think. So there is no foot dragging. Now you are just being emotional and silly.

    As for bailing out the financial community, government helped to create the problem, partly through Fannie and Freddie and packaging up mortgaged back securities. I would prefer that the Gov’t be out of the banking system altogether. I’d prefer the Gov’t to stay out of the financial system. I’ve never liked GSEs.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  528. Those folks have been exporting their pollution with 600 ft stacks for decades. They dragged their feet on SOx and NOx and particulates, and mercury, and greenhouse gases. Not true, the plants comply with the Clean Air Act. Many coal fired power plants switched to lower sulfur coal to avoid installing post combustion treating. Greenhouse gases are NOT pollutants under the law, despite what you might think. So there is no foot dragging. Now you are just being emotional and silly. As for bailing out the financial community, government helped to create the problem, partly through Fannie and Freddie and packaging up mortgaged back securities. I would prefer that the Gov’t be out of the banking system altogether. I’d prefer the Gov’t to stay out of the financial system. I’ve never liked GSEs.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  529. “Not true, the plants comply with the Clean Air Act. Many coal fired power plants switched to lower sulfur coal to avoid installing post combustion treating. “

    I went those stacks, and calibrated Clean Air Act monitoring equipment.

    I know the history, I know why some states were sued to make them lower their stacks.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  530. “Not true, the plants comply with the Clean Air Act. Many coal fired power plants switched to lower sulfur coal to avoid installing post combustion treating. “

    I went those stacks, and calibrated Clean Air Act monitoring equipment.

    I know the history, I know why some states were sued to make them lower their stacks.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  531. “Not true, the plants comply with the Clean Air Act. Many coal fired power plants switched to lower sulfur coal to avoid installing post combustion treating. “

    I went those stacks, and calibrated Clean Air Act monitoring equipment.

    I know the history, I know why some states were sued to make them lower their stacks.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  532. “Not true, the plants comply with the Clean Air Act. Many coal fired power plants switched to lower sulfur coal to avoid installing post combustion treating. “

    I went those stacks, and calibrated Clean Air Act monitoring equipment.

    I know the history, I know why some states were sued to make them lower their stacks.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  533. “Not true, the plants comply with the Clean Air Act. Many coal fired power plants switched to lower sulfur coal to avoid installing post combustion treating. “

    I went those stacks, and calibrated Clean Air Act monitoring equipment.

    I know the history, I know why some states were sued to make them lower their stacks.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  534. “Not true, the plants comply with the Clean Air Act. Many coal fired power plants switched to lower sulfur coal to avoid installing post combustion treating. “

    I went those stacks, and calibrated Clean Air Act monitoring equipment.

    I know the history, I know why some states were sued to make them lower their stacks.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  535. “Not true, the plants comply with the Clean Air Act. Many coal fired power plants switched to lower sulfur coal to avoid installing post combustion treating. “

    I went those stacks, and calibrated Clean Air Act monitoring equipment.

    I know the history, I know why some states were sued to make them lower their stacks.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  536. “Not true, the plants comply with the Clean Air Act. Many coal fired power plants switched to lower sulfur coal to avoid installing post combustion treating. “I went those stacks, and calibrated Clean Air Act monitoring equipment.I know the history, I know why some states were sued to make them lower their stacks.- odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  537. “As for bailing out the financial community, government helped to create the problem, partly through Fannie and Freddie and packaging up mortgaged back securities. I would prefer that the Gov’t be out of the banking system altogether. I’d prefer the Gov’t to stay out of the financial system. I’ve never liked GSEs.

    I see the word “helped” in there. It makes your statement technically correct, but nonetheless a dodge.

    No one in the Clinton nor the Bush administrations, both of whom were boosters for zero-down sub-prime loans, required banks to make bad loans.

    The “securitizers” did that because a) they were paid for initiation, b) had no skin in the long-term game.

    To imply that less regulation would have cured that is preposterous on its face.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  538. “As for bailing out the financial community, government helped to create the problem, partly through Fannie and Freddie and packaging up mortgaged back securities. I would prefer that the Gov’t be out of the banking system altogether. I’d prefer the Gov’t to stay out of the financial system. I’ve never liked GSEs.

    I see the word “helped” in there. It makes your statement technically correct, but nonetheless a dodge.

    No one in the Clinton nor the Bush administrations, both of whom were boosters for zero-down sub-prime loans, required banks to make bad loans.

    The “securitizers” did that because a) they were paid for initiation, b) had no skin in the long-term game.

    To imply that less regulation would have cured that is preposterous on its face.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  539. “As for bailing out the financial community, government helped to create the problem, partly through Fannie and Freddie and packaging up mortgaged back securities. I would prefer that the Gov’t be out of the banking system altogether. I’d prefer the Gov’t to stay out of the financial system. I’ve never liked GSEs.

    I see the word “helped” in there. It makes your statement technically correct, but nonetheless a dodge.

    No one in the Clinton nor the Bush administrations, both of whom were boosters for zero-down sub-prime loans, required banks to make bad loans.

    The “securitizers” did that because a) they were paid for initiation, b) had no skin in the long-term game.

    To imply that less regulation would have cured that is preposterous on its face.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  540. “As for bailing out the financial community, government helped to create the problem, partly through Fannie and Freddie and packaging up mortgaged back securities. I would prefer that the Gov’t be out of the banking system altogether. I’d prefer the Gov’t to stay out of the financial system. I’ve never liked GSEs.

    I see the word “helped” in there. It makes your statement technically correct, but nonetheless a dodge.

    No one in the Clinton nor the Bush administrations, both of whom were boosters for zero-down sub-prime loans, required banks to make bad loans.

    The “securitizers” did that because a) they were paid for initiation, b) had no skin in the long-term game.

    To imply that less regulation would have cured that is preposterous on its face.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  541. “As for bailing out the financial community, government helped to create the problem, partly through Fannie and Freddie and packaging up mortgaged back securities. I would prefer that the Gov’t be out of the banking system altogether. I’d prefer the Gov’t to stay out of the financial system. I’ve never liked GSEs.

    I see the word “helped” in there. It makes your statement technically correct, but nonetheless a dodge.

    No one in the Clinton nor the Bush administrations, both of whom were boosters for zero-down sub-prime loans, required banks to make bad loans.

    The “securitizers” did that because a) they were paid for initiation, b) had no skin in the long-term game.

    To imply that less regulation would have cured that is preposterous on its face.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  542. “As for bailing out the financial community, government helped to create the problem, partly through Fannie and Freddie and packaging up mortgaged back securities. I would prefer that the Gov’t be out of the banking system altogether. I’d prefer the Gov’t to stay out of the financial system. I’ve never liked GSEs.

    I see the word “helped” in there. It makes your statement technically correct, but nonetheless a dodge.

    No one in the Clinton nor the Bush administrations, both of whom were boosters for zero-down sub-prime loans, required banks to make bad loans.

    The “securitizers” did that because a) they were paid for initiation, b) had no skin in the long-term game.

    To imply that less regulation would have cured that is preposterous on its face.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  543. “As for bailing out the financial community, government helped to create the problem, partly through Fannie and Freddie and packaging up mortgaged back securities. I would prefer that the Gov’t be out of the banking system altogether. I’d prefer the Gov’t to stay out of the financial system. I’ve never liked GSEs.

    I see the word “helped” in there. It makes your statement technically correct, but nonetheless a dodge.

    No one in the Clinton nor the Bush administrations, both of whom were boosters for zero-down sub-prime loans, required banks to make bad loans.

    The “securitizers” did that because a) they were paid for initiation, b) had no skin in the long-term game.

    To imply that less regulation would have cured that is preposterous on its face.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  544. “As for bailing out the financial community, government helped to create the problem, partly through Fannie and Freddie and packaging up mortgaged back securities. I would prefer that the Gov’t be out of the banking system altogether. I’d prefer the Gov’t to stay out of the financial system. I’ve never liked GSEs.I see the word “helped” in there. It makes your statement technically correct, but nonetheless a dodge.No one in the Clinton nor the Bush administrations, both of whom were boosters for zero-down sub-prime loans, required banks to make bad loans.The “securitizers” did that because a) they were paid for initiation, b) had no skin in the long-term game.To imply that less regulation would have cured that is preposterous on its face.- odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  545. This explains it all about Odograph, “Will it bankrupt them to adopt my California pollution footprint?”

    I have lived in California and I certainly do not think they are a thrifty lot taken as whole. The reason California has high electric rates is they relies too much on natural gas and expected it would say cheap no matter how much they sucked out pipelines from other places regardless of the impact on fishing streams where the gas is produced. Places like France that do not have coal build nuke plants.

    It will not Odograph at all to make my rates go up. Why does Odograph thinks he needs to protect people who already have clean air? If they were building a coal plant where Odograph lives, maybe I could understand.

    Comment by Kit P | November 3, 2008

  546. This explains it all about Odograph, “Will it bankrupt them to adopt my California pollution footprint?”

    I have lived in California and I certainly do not think they are a thrifty lot taken as whole. The reason California has high electric rates is they relies too much on natural gas and expected it would say cheap no matter how much they sucked out pipelines from other places regardless of the impact on fishing streams where the gas is produced. Places like France that do not have coal build nuke plants.

    It will not Odograph at all to make my rates go up. Why does Odograph thinks he needs to protect people who already have clean air? If they were building a coal plant where Odograph lives, maybe I could understand.

    Comment by Kit P | November 3, 2008

  547. This explains it all about Odograph, “Will it bankrupt them to adopt my California pollution footprint?”

    I have lived in California and I certainly do not think they are a thrifty lot taken as whole. The reason California has high electric rates is they relies too much on natural gas and expected it would say cheap no matter how much they sucked out pipelines from other places regardless of the impact on fishing streams where the gas is produced. Places like France that do not have coal build nuke plants.

    It will not Odograph at all to make my rates go up. Why does Odograph thinks he needs to protect people who already have clean air? If they were building a coal plant where Odograph lives, maybe I could understand.

    Comment by Kit P | November 3, 2008

  548. This explains it all about Odograph, “Will it bankrupt them to adopt my California pollution footprint?”

    I have lived in California and I certainly do not think they are a thrifty lot taken as whole. The reason California has high electric rates is they relies too much on natural gas and expected it would say cheap no matter how much they sucked out pipelines from other places regardless of the impact on fishing streams where the gas is produced. Places like France that do not have coal build nuke plants.

    It will not Odograph at all to make my rates go up. Why does Odograph thinks he needs to protect people who already have clean air? If they were building a coal plant where Odograph lives, maybe I could understand.

    Comment by Kit P | November 3, 2008

  549. This explains it all about Odograph, “Will it bankrupt them to adopt my California pollution footprint?”

    I have lived in California and I certainly do not think they are a thrifty lot taken as whole. The reason California has high electric rates is they relies too much on natural gas and expected it would say cheap no matter how much they sucked out pipelines from other places regardless of the impact on fishing streams where the gas is produced. Places like France that do not have coal build nuke plants.

    It will not Odograph at all to make my rates go up. Why does Odograph thinks he needs to protect people who already have clean air? If they were building a coal plant where Odograph lives, maybe I could understand.

    Comment by Kit P | November 3, 2008

  550. This explains it all about Odograph, “Will it bankrupt them to adopt my California pollution footprint?”

    I have lived in California and I certainly do not think they are a thrifty lot taken as whole. The reason California has high electric rates is they relies too much on natural gas and expected it would say cheap no matter how much they sucked out pipelines from other places regardless of the impact on fishing streams where the gas is produced. Places like France that do not have coal build nuke plants.

    It will not Odograph at all to make my rates go up. Why does Odograph thinks he needs to protect people who already have clean air? If they were building a coal plant where Odograph lives, maybe I could understand.

    Comment by Kit P | November 3, 2008

  551. This explains it all about Odograph, “Will it bankrupt them to adopt my California pollution footprint?”

    I have lived in California and I certainly do not think they are a thrifty lot taken as whole. The reason California has high electric rates is they relies too much on natural gas and expected it would say cheap no matter how much they sucked out pipelines from other places regardless of the impact on fishing streams where the gas is produced. Places like France that do not have coal build nuke plants.

    It will not Odograph at all to make my rates go up. Why does Odograph thinks he needs to protect people who already have clean air? If they were building a coal plant where Odograph lives, maybe I could understand.

    Comment by Kit P | November 3, 2008

  552. This explains it all about Odograph, “Will it bankrupt them to adopt my California pollution footprint?”I have lived in California and I certainly do not think they are a thrifty lot taken as whole. The reason California has high electric rates is they relies too much on natural gas and expected it would say cheap no matter how much they sucked out pipelines from other places regardless of the impact on fishing streams where the gas is produced. Places like France that do not have coal build nuke plants.It will not Odograph at all to make my rates go up. Why does Odograph thinks he needs to protect people who already have clean air? If they were building a coal plant where Odograph lives, maybe I could understand.

    Comment by Kit P | November 3, 2008

  553. So mark-to-market rules and other provisions of Sarbanes-Oxley didn’t also have its impact?

    There is plenty of blame to go around for this mess. You can’t point to a single thing that caused it. The closest you could come is NOT assigning the correct amount of risk premiums to credit default swaps , and applying CDSs to mortgage backed securities .

    It is ironic that most of the money made on CDS instruments went to zip codes in the bluest of blue Obama states (think upper West Side, Connecticut). Yet somehow this is the Republicans’ fault.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  554. So mark-to-market rules and other provisions of Sarbanes-Oxley didn’t also have its impact?

    There is plenty of blame to go around for this mess. You can’t point to a single thing that caused it. The closest you could come is NOT assigning the correct amount of risk premiums to credit default swaps , and applying CDSs to mortgage backed securities .

    It is ironic that most of the money made on CDS instruments went to zip codes in the bluest of blue Obama states (think upper West Side, Connecticut). Yet somehow this is the Republicans’ fault.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  555. So mark-to-market rules and other provisions of Sarbanes-Oxley didn’t also have its impact?

    There is plenty of blame to go around for this mess. You can’t point to a single thing that caused it. The closest you could come is NOT assigning the correct amount of risk premiums to credit default swaps , and applying CDSs to mortgage backed securities .

    It is ironic that most of the money made on CDS instruments went to zip codes in the bluest of blue Obama states (think upper West Side, Connecticut). Yet somehow this is the Republicans’ fault.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  556. So mark-to-market rules and other provisions of Sarbanes-Oxley didn’t also have its impact?

    There is plenty of blame to go around for this mess. You can’t point to a single thing that caused it. The closest you could come is NOT assigning the correct amount of risk premiums to credit default swaps , and applying CDSs to mortgage backed securities .

    It is ironic that most of the money made on CDS instruments went to zip codes in the bluest of blue Obama states (think upper West Side, Connecticut). Yet somehow this is the Republicans’ fault.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  557. So mark-to-market rules and other provisions of Sarbanes-Oxley didn’t also have its impact?

    There is plenty of blame to go around for this mess. You can’t point to a single thing that caused it. The closest you could come is NOT assigning the correct amount of risk premiums to credit default swaps , and applying CDSs to mortgage backed securities .

    It is ironic that most of the money made on CDS instruments went to zip codes in the bluest of blue Obama states (think upper West Side, Connecticut). Yet somehow this is the Republicans’ fault.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  558. So mark-to-market rules and other provisions of Sarbanes-Oxley didn’t also have its impact?

    There is plenty of blame to go around for this mess. You can’t point to a single thing that caused it. The closest you could come is NOT assigning the correct amount of risk premiums to credit default swaps , and applying CDSs to mortgage backed securities .

    It is ironic that most of the money made on CDS instruments went to zip codes in the bluest of blue Obama states (think upper West Side, Connecticut). Yet somehow this is the Republicans’ fault.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  559. So mark-to-market rules and other provisions of Sarbanes-Oxley didn’t also have its impact?

    There is plenty of blame to go around for this mess. You can’t point to a single thing that caused it. The closest you could come is NOT assigning the correct amount of risk premiums to credit default swaps , and applying CDSs to mortgage backed securities .

    It is ironic that most of the money made on CDS instruments went to zip codes in the bluest of blue Obama states (think upper West Side, Connecticut). Yet somehow this is the Republicans’ fault.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  560. So mark-to-market rules and other provisions of Sarbanes-Oxley didn’t also have its impact? There is plenty of blame to go around for this mess. You can’t point to a single thing that caused it. The closest you could come is NOT assigning the correct amount of risk premiums to credit default swaps , and applying CDSs to mortgage backed securities . It is ironic that most of the money made on CDS instruments went to zip codes in the bluest of blue Obama states (think upper West Side, Connecticut). Yet somehow this is the Republicans’ fault.

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  561. No King, compared to the “agency” problem in securitization not much of that matters.

    The people who made the loans were not the ones who would collect the long-term money. In “agency” situations the risk is that a person doing a thing doesn’t use the same care and concern as those for whom he acts.

    If the loan officer had to hang around and be reviewed based on the performance of his portfolio, would he have accepted no doc loans? Would he so happily accept stated income?

    No.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  562. No King, compared to the “agency” problem in securitization not much of that matters.

    The people who made the loans were not the ones who would collect the long-term money. In “agency” situations the risk is that a person doing a thing doesn’t use the same care and concern as those for whom he acts.

    If the loan officer had to hang around and be reviewed based on the performance of his portfolio, would he have accepted no doc loans? Would he so happily accept stated income?

    No.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  563. No King, compared to the “agency” problem in securitization not much of that matters.

    The people who made the loans were not the ones who would collect the long-term money. In “agency” situations the risk is that a person doing a thing doesn’t use the same care and concern as those for whom he acts.

    If the loan officer had to hang around and be reviewed based on the performance of his portfolio, would he have accepted no doc loans? Would he so happily accept stated income?

    No.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  564. No King, compared to the “agency” problem in securitization not much of that matters.

    The people who made the loans were not the ones who would collect the long-term money. In “agency” situations the risk is that a person doing a thing doesn’t use the same care and concern as those for whom he acts.

    If the loan officer had to hang around and be reviewed based on the performance of his portfolio, would he have accepted no doc loans? Would he so happily accept stated income?

    No.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  565. No King, compared to the “agency” problem in securitization not much of that matters.

    The people who made the loans were not the ones who would collect the long-term money. In “agency” situations the risk is that a person doing a thing doesn’t use the same care and concern as those for whom he acts.

    If the loan officer had to hang around and be reviewed based on the performance of his portfolio, would he have accepted no doc loans? Would he so happily accept stated income?

    No.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  566. No King, compared to the “agency” problem in securitization not much of that matters.

    The people who made the loans were not the ones who would collect the long-term money. In “agency” situations the risk is that a person doing a thing doesn’t use the same care and concern as those for whom he acts.

    If the loan officer had to hang around and be reviewed based on the performance of his portfolio, would he have accepted no doc loans? Would he so happily accept stated income?

    No.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  567. No King, compared to the “agency” problem in securitization not much of that matters.

    The people who made the loans were not the ones who would collect the long-term money. In “agency” situations the risk is that a person doing a thing doesn’t use the same care and concern as those for whom he acts.

    If the loan officer had to hang around and be reviewed based on the performance of his portfolio, would he have accepted no doc loans? Would he so happily accept stated income?

    No.

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  568. No King, compared to the “agency” problem in securitization not much of that matters.The people who made the loans were not the ones who would collect the long-term money. In “agency” situations the risk is that a person doing a thing doesn’t use the same care and concern as those for whom he acts.If the loan officer had to hang around and be reviewed based on the performance of his portfolio, would he have accepted no doc loans? Would he so happily accept stated income?No.- odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  569. Odograph – how do you feel about building more efficient, cleaner, coal fired power plants and then knocking down dirtier plants?

    A case in point, e.on is proposing a new supercritical steam plant in Kent . Supercritical plants can achieve 42-43% thermal efficiency as opposed to 35% for conventional plants. That is a big improvement.

    Yet the idiots with Greenpeace and other environmental groups are protesting the new plant. e.on plans to demolish the less efficient plant, but will continue to run it until the new one is built. This is madness. Envirnomental groups are even protesting gas fired power generation!

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  570. Odograph – how do you feel about building more efficient, cleaner, coal fired power plants and then knocking down dirtier plants?

    A case in point, e.on is proposing a new supercritical steam plant in Kent . Supercritical plants can achieve 42-43% thermal efficiency as opposed to 35% for conventional plants. That is a big improvement.

    Yet the idiots with Greenpeace and other environmental groups are protesting the new plant. e.on plans to demolish the less efficient plant, but will continue to run it until the new one is built. This is madness. Envirnomental groups are even protesting gas fired power generation!

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  571. Odograph – how do you feel about building more efficient, cleaner, coal fired power plants and then knocking down dirtier plants?

    A case in point, e.on is proposing a new supercritical steam plant in Kent . Supercritical plants can achieve 42-43% thermal efficiency as opposed to 35% for conventional plants. That is a big improvement.

    Yet the idiots with Greenpeace and other environmental groups are protesting the new plant. e.on plans to demolish the less efficient plant, but will continue to run it until the new one is built. This is madness. Envirnomental groups are even protesting gas fired power generation!

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  572. Odograph – how do you feel about building more efficient, cleaner, coal fired power plants and then knocking down dirtier plants?

    A case in point, e.on is proposing a new supercritical steam plant in Kent . Supercritical plants can achieve 42-43% thermal efficiency as opposed to 35% for conventional plants. That is a big improvement.

    Yet the idiots with Greenpeace and other environmental groups are protesting the new plant. e.on plans to demolish the less efficient plant, but will continue to run it until the new one is built. This is madness. Envirnomental groups are even protesting gas fired power generation!

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  573. Odograph – how do you feel about building more efficient, cleaner, coal fired power plants and then knocking down dirtier plants?

    A case in point, e.on is proposing a new supercritical steam plant in Kent . Supercritical plants can achieve 42-43% thermal efficiency as opposed to 35% for conventional plants. That is a big improvement.

    Yet the idiots with Greenpeace and other environmental groups are protesting the new plant. e.on plans to demolish the less efficient plant, but will continue to run it until the new one is built. This is madness. Envirnomental groups are even protesting gas fired power generation!

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  574. Odograph – how do you feel about building more efficient, cleaner, coal fired power plants and then knocking down dirtier plants?

    A case in point, e.on is proposing a new supercritical steam plant in Kent . Supercritical plants can achieve 42-43% thermal efficiency as opposed to 35% for conventional plants. That is a big improvement.

    Yet the idiots with Greenpeace and other environmental groups are protesting the new plant. e.on plans to demolish the less efficient plant, but will continue to run it until the new one is built. This is madness. Envirnomental groups are even protesting gas fired power generation!

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  575. Odograph – how do you feel about building more efficient, cleaner, coal fired power plants and then knocking down dirtier plants?

    A case in point, e.on is proposing a new supercritical steam plant in Kent . Supercritical plants can achieve 42-43% thermal efficiency as opposed to 35% for conventional plants. That is a big improvement.

    Yet the idiots with Greenpeace and other environmental groups are protesting the new plant. e.on plans to demolish the less efficient plant, but will continue to run it until the new one is built. This is madness. Envirnomental groups are even protesting gas fired power generation!

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  576. Odograph – how do you feel about building more efficient, cleaner, coal fired power plants and then knocking down dirtier plants? A case in point, e.on is proposing a new supercritical steam plant in Kent . Supercritical plants can achieve 42-43% thermal efficiency as opposed to 35% for conventional plants. That is a big improvement. Yet the idiots with Greenpeace and other environmental groups are protesting the new plant. e.on plans to demolish the less efficient plant, but will continue to run it until the new one is built. This is madness. Envirnomental groups are even protesting gas fired power generation!

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  577. Odo – I don’t disagree that the loan originators were a big part of the problem. And who was one of the worst? Countrywide – who were protected by the

    “friends of Angelo” . Did you notice anything in common about the FOAs? Political party maybe? Oh, but I forgot, it is all Bush’s fault. Angelo is just some great guy who gives out low interest loans to his buddies just out of the goodness of his heart, expecting nada in return – nothing to see here – move along.

    For a completely different take on the coal industry that Obama wants to destroy: Coal not in a slump

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  578. Odo – I don’t disagree that the loan originators were a big part of the problem. And who was one of the worst? Countrywide – who were protected by the

    “friends of Angelo” . Did you notice anything in common about the FOAs? Political party maybe? Oh, but I forgot, it is all Bush’s fault. Angelo is just some great guy who gives out low interest loans to his buddies just out of the goodness of his heart, expecting nada in return – nothing to see here – move along.

    For a completely different take on the coal industry that Obama wants to destroy: Coal not in a slump

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  579. Odo – I don’t disagree that the loan originators were a big part of the problem. And who was one of the worst? Countrywide – who were protected by the

    “friends of Angelo” . Did you notice anything in common about the FOAs? Political party maybe? Oh, but I forgot, it is all Bush’s fault. Angelo is just some great guy who gives out low interest loans to his buddies just out of the goodness of his heart, expecting nada in return – nothing to see here – move along.

    For a completely different take on the coal industry that Obama wants to destroy: Coal not in a slump

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  580. Odo – I don’t disagree that the loan originators were a big part of the problem. And who was one of the worst? Countrywide – who were protected by the

    “friends of Angelo” . Did you notice anything in common about the FOAs? Political party maybe? Oh, but I forgot, it is all Bush’s fault. Angelo is just some great guy who gives out low interest loans to his buddies just out of the goodness of his heart, expecting nada in return – nothing to see here – move along.

    For a completely different take on the coal industry that Obama wants to destroy: Coal not in a slump

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  581. Odo – I don’t disagree that the loan originators were a big part of the problem. And who was one of the worst? Countrywide – who were protected by the

    “friends of Angelo” . Did you notice anything in common about the FOAs? Political party maybe? Oh, but I forgot, it is all Bush’s fault. Angelo is just some great guy who gives out low interest loans to his buddies just out of the goodness of his heart, expecting nada in return – nothing to see here – move along.

    For a completely different take on the coal industry that Obama wants to destroy: Coal not in a slump

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  582. Odo – I don’t disagree that the loan originators were a big part of the problem. And who was one of the worst? Countrywide – who were protected by the

    “friends of Angelo” . Did you notice anything in common about the FOAs? Political party maybe? Oh, but I forgot, it is all Bush’s fault. Angelo is just some great guy who gives out low interest loans to his buddies just out of the goodness of his heart, expecting nada in return – nothing to see here – move along.

    For a completely different take on the coal industry that Obama wants to destroy: Coal not in a slump

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  583. Odo – I don’t disagree that the loan originators were a big part of the problem. And who was one of the worst? Countrywide – who were protected by the

    “friends of Angelo” . Did you notice anything in common about the FOAs? Political party maybe? Oh, but I forgot, it is all Bush’s fault. Angelo is just some great guy who gives out low interest loans to his buddies just out of the goodness of his heart, expecting nada in return – nothing to see here – move along.

    For a completely different take on the coal industry that Obama wants to destroy: Coal not in a slump

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  584. Odo – I don’t disagree that the loan originators were a big part of the problem. And who was one of the worst? Countrywide – who were protected by the “friends of Angelo” . Did you notice anything in common about the FOAs? Political party maybe? Oh, but I forgot, it is all Bush’s fault. Angelo is just some great guy who gives out low interest loans to his buddies just out of the goodness of his heart, expecting nada in return – nothing to see here – move along. For a completely different take on the coal industry that Obama wants to destroy: Coal not in a slump

    Comment by KingofKaty | November 3, 2008

  585. I don’t think you are quite accepting the significance of this:

    “I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms,” Mr. Greenspan said.

    Referring to his free-market ideology, Mr. Greenspan added: “I have found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I have been very distressed by that fact.”

    Mr. Waxman pressed the former Fed chair to clarify his words. “In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working,” Mr. Waxman said.

    “Absolutely, precisely,” Mr. Greenspan replied. “You know, that’s precisely the reason I was shocked, because I have been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.”

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  586. I don’t think you are quite accepting the significance of this:

    “I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms,” Mr. Greenspan said.

    Referring to his free-market ideology, Mr. Greenspan added: “I have found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I have been very distressed by that fact.”

    Mr. Waxman pressed the former Fed chair to clarify his words. “In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working,” Mr. Waxman said.

    “Absolutely, precisely,” Mr. Greenspan replied. “You know, that’s precisely the reason I was shocked, because I have been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.”

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  587. I don’t think you are quite accepting the significance of this:

    “I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms,” Mr. Greenspan said.

    Referring to his free-market ideology, Mr. Greenspan added: “I have found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I have been very distressed by that fact.”

    Mr. Waxman pressed the former Fed chair to clarify his words. “In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working,” Mr. Waxman said.

    “Absolutely, precisely,” Mr. Greenspan replied. “You know, that’s precisely the reason I was shocked, because I have been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.”

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  588. I don’t think you are quite accepting the significance of this:

    “I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms,” Mr. Greenspan said.

    Referring to his free-market ideology, Mr. Greenspan added: “I have found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I have been very distressed by that fact.”

    Mr. Waxman pressed the former Fed chair to clarify his words. “In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working,” Mr. Waxman said.

    “Absolutely, precisely,” Mr. Greenspan replied. “You know, that’s precisely the reason I was shocked, because I have been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.”

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  589. I don’t think you are quite accepting the significance of this:

    “I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms,” Mr. Greenspan said.

    Referring to his free-market ideology, Mr. Greenspan added: “I have found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I have been very distressed by that fact.”

    Mr. Waxman pressed the former Fed chair to clarify his words. “In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working,” Mr. Waxman said.

    “Absolutely, precisely,” Mr. Greenspan replied. “You know, that’s precisely the reason I was shocked, because I have been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.”

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  590. I don’t think you are quite accepting the significance of this:

    “I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms,” Mr. Greenspan said.

    Referring to his free-market ideology, Mr. Greenspan added: “I have found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I have been very distressed by that fact.”

    Mr. Waxman pressed the former Fed chair to clarify his words. “In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working,” Mr. Waxman said.

    “Absolutely, precisely,” Mr. Greenspan replied. “You know, that’s precisely the reason I was shocked, because I have been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.”

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  591. I don’t think you are quite accepting the significance of this:

    “I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms,” Mr. Greenspan said.

    Referring to his free-market ideology, Mr. Greenspan added: “I have found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I have been very distressed by that fact.”

    Mr. Waxman pressed the former Fed chair to clarify his words. “In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working,” Mr. Waxman said.

    “Absolutely, precisely,” Mr. Greenspan replied. “You know, that’s precisely the reason I was shocked, because I have been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.”

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  592. I don’t think you are quite accepting the significance of this:“I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms,” Mr. Greenspan said.Referring to his free-market ideology, Mr. Greenspan added: “I have found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I have been very distressed by that fact.”Mr. Waxman pressed the former Fed chair to clarify his words. “In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working,” Mr. Waxman said.“Absolutely, precisely,” Mr. Greenspan replied. “You know, that’s precisely the reason I was shocked, because I have been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.”- odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  593. Greenepeace and the Sierra Club are sometimes idiots, but they probably sense that they can gain more with a hard line in the coal states than through incremental movement.

    Given their goals, that may not be dumb.

    Are any of their opponents ready to commit to high percentages of renewables? Is any coal-powered state actually committing to a low-carbon future?

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  594. Greenepeace and the Sierra Club are sometimes idiots, but they probably sense that they can gain more with a hard line in the coal states than through incremental movement.

    Given their goals, that may not be dumb.

    Are any of their opponents ready to commit to high percentages of renewables? Is any coal-powered state actually committing to a low-carbon future?

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  595. Greenepeace and the Sierra Club are sometimes idiots, but they probably sense that they can gain more with a hard line in the coal states than through incremental movement.

    Given their goals, that may not be dumb.

    Are any of their opponents ready to commit to high percentages of renewables? Is any coal-powered state actually committing to a low-carbon future?

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  596. Greenepeace and the Sierra Club are sometimes idiots, but they probably sense that they can gain more with a hard line in the coal states than through incremental movement.

    Given their goals, that may not be dumb.

    Are any of their opponents ready to commit to high percentages of renewables? Is any coal-powered state actually committing to a low-carbon future?

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  597. Greenepeace and the Sierra Club are sometimes idiots, but they probably sense that they can gain more with a hard line in the coal states than through incremental movement.

    Given their goals, that may not be dumb.

    Are any of their opponents ready to commit to high percentages of renewables? Is any coal-powered state actually committing to a low-carbon future?

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  598. Greenepeace and the Sierra Club are sometimes idiots, but they probably sense that they can gain more with a hard line in the coal states than through incremental movement.

    Given their goals, that may not be dumb.

    Are any of their opponents ready to commit to high percentages of renewables? Is any coal-powered state actually committing to a low-carbon future?

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  599. Greenepeace and the Sierra Club are sometimes idiots, but they probably sense that they can gain more with a hard line in the coal states than through incremental movement.

    Given their goals, that may not be dumb.

    Are any of their opponents ready to commit to high percentages of renewables? Is any coal-powered state actually committing to a low-carbon future?

    – odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008

  600. Greenepeace and the Sierra Club are sometimes idiots, but they probably sense that they can gain more with a hard line in the coal states than through incremental movement.Given their goals, that may not be dumb.Are any of their opponents ready to commit to high percentages of renewables? Is any coal-powered state actually committing to a low-carbon future?- odograph

    Comment by Anonymous | November 3, 2008


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: