Why isn't alternative energy a focal issue for the Democrats?

[Guaranteed]

Energy independence, if approached with a well thought-out, and well-funded, plan, could be a new "New Deal" for a Democratic nominee. It's baffling that no one is talking about the Saudis and their connections to 9/11, and most likely the reason has something to do with our oil deals with them. One could be much more aggressive with them with a plan to be independent in our energy consumption.
It would be an extremely difficult plan to coordinate and fund, but, it's the key to US security.
Anyone have any ideas why this isn't being addressed, other than "oil companies influence" or "it's too expensive"? Is there any reason that it isn't possible?

On edit: Folks, we're talking about trillions of dollars probably. Not Kerry's 1.3 billion or whatever token piece of crap he'd throw at it. I'm not just throwing around the term "New Deal" for nothing. This would change everything.
We're not talking about increasing fuel efficiency. We're talking about taking out the whole gas tank and using a different kind of fuel. We're not talking about increasing emission standards. We're talking about ripping out the whole innards of the factory and replacing it with something cleaner, cheaper, and non-Saudi. And we're talking about doing this across the whole United States.

[Nlighten1]

1. Because the US has a "fiat petro dollar"

If the economy changes we might implode.

[Fovea]

5. The current paradigm assures implosion

So there really is no argument besides greed to sustain the unsustainable status quo any longer.

At the very least we should be using ethanol instead of petroleum.
We should also be doing whatever needs to be done to move us away from ICE and Kyoto busting transportation.

[Guaranteed]

14. Agreed

I think our current economic situation is already plenty bad. There's no reason not to branch out and find something new. We're a trailblazing country, and (I don't want to sound too cliche here) but if anyone can take this world into the 21st century, it's us.

[KG]

2. um, because the front runners and the dem party

are basically defenders of the status quo and beholden to big business for campaign dough?

[Guaranteed]

3. No, see I was saying other

than the oil company influence.
I'm asking if it is scientifically (and I suppose economically, although I'm less concerned about that) conceivable to be independent from the Middle East as far as energy is concerned.

[KG]

4. i know, but that is the reason.

the technology is advancing, but nobody that counts really care right now...

[Guaranteed]

7. If it's possible,

then that is the correct Democratic platform. Someone really ought to grab it. If the plan is conceived correctly, they'll win.

[blm]

9. Kerry has already put that plan out. See post below.

.

[JaneQPublic]

6. "A Progressive Plan for Renewable Energy"

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_policy_economy_energy_summary

[Guaranteed]

10. That's basically what I'm looking for

but I'm really not referring to what might be 1.3 billion dollar program that would pass through Congress in one bill (not saying that's what Dean is doing but I've heard stuff like that from Kerry). I'm talking about a HUGE plan that would find the technology (if it doesn't already exist) to retrofit all factories, cars, etc. in the United States to an cleaner, cheaper and less political form of energy than oil.
But, yes, Dean's five points there are more or less what I'm looking for. If it was exactly it, though, it would be at the forefront of his policy and would probably cost hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars.

[blm]

8. I take it you don't listen much to John Kerry's speeches?

He links alternate fuel and energy independence to national security and he's been doing it for over a year. In fact, he has worked on this issue for decades.

Here's an excerpt from his last env. speech:

http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2003_1020.html
>>>>>>>
The members of this Administration may only know how to dismantle and destroy, but we need a President who knows that Americans have the power to imagine and build. 

If I am your President, it’ll mean the end of secret meetings for energy industry special interests.  I’ll have a simple message for the lobbyists and polluters that call the Bush White House home: Don’t let the door hit you on your way out. 

As soon as I step into the Oval Office, I will transform the White House into a hub of inspiration and innovation and lead America on the great endeavor of creating a cleaner and greener nation.

Today, I am releasing a comprehensive plan for how to take our environment back. Within the first six months of my taking office, here’s what we will be able to accomplish: We will reverse the damage of the Bush assault on our environment and take aggressive steps to clean our air and water.  We will restore America’s leadership on combating climate change and set America on a course to energy independence. 

But we won’t just fix what they did wrong, we’ll do even better. We will begin building a clean and prosperous and beautiful nation in the twenty first century by supporting smart growth policies for every community and by creating a Conservation Covenant to preserve those unprotected parts of America’s natural beauty for the generations to follow.

As President, I will build a coalition for environmental progress and protection – with every worker, every business executive, every parent, every student helping us move forward – together.  We will enlist farmers and ranchers, hunters and fishermen, as stewards of the land and the water on which they depend on for their livelihoods.

We’ll reward those who innovate, and charge those who pollute.  We’ll give America’s most powerful companies green lights and greenbacks to pull advanced technology out of the lab and off the shelf and put the American people back to work. 

We will bring the technologies of tomorrow to the roads and rails and homes of today. Instead of vast subsidies for dirty industries and obsolete technologies, we’ll invest in a cleaner tomorrow. 

We will return America to its rightful role as a leader in the global battle against climate change, poverty, and the spread of disease.  Global problems know no boundaries.  The earth is a small planet where wind and water, poison and pollution know no borders.  

If we care about the national security of America, we can settle for nothing less than energy security for America. The dollars we spend at the pump can too easily be diverted to finance the very terrorists that would seek to destroy us. The threats that America faces today don't just come from gun barrels, they come from oil barrels - and we need to disarm that danger. I have a comprehensive plan to end America’s reliance on Mideast oil within the next decade.  It’s right for our security.  Right for our economy.  Right for our environment.

We have the technology to manufacture cars with far better gas mileage – and we can and must do it now. Not a single American needs to give up driving an SUV or a pick-up truck. But at the same time, we need to repeal the outrageous one hundred thousand dollar tax break for the purchase of luxury gas-guzzlers like Hummers. Americans have the right to drive whatever car they want – but they don't have the right to have the government pay for more dependence on foreign oil.

As President, I will put environmental justice center stage.  For too long, poor and minority communities have been overlooked when it came to the environment.  And for too long, polluters thought they could get away with breaking the law as long as it was in someone else’s back yard.  Those days need to end.  Under a Kerry Administration, no community will have their environment overlooked.  They will have the power to fight back.  And the polluters won’t get away with it any more.
>>>>>>>

[Guaranteed]

11. Yeah but it's just business as usual

unless you're talking about a massive overhaul.
I'm NOT talking about token programs here, folks.

[blm]

16. Bull...You didn't read it. Kerry will fund it like the space program,

FULLY funding alternative fuel research with the same dedication Kennedy had to exploring space.

Noone could read through Kerry's policies and conclude it's business as usual, or just token programs. You must not be very serious if you didn't bother to read through.

Big hint: Kerry has the best and most ACTIVIST environmental record of any candidate EVER.

[Guaranteed]

17. I've heard him talk about it.

He didn't seem that dedicated to me. This would be the central issue in my campaign. Everything else would branch off of THIS one thing.

On edit: This is a hundred, a thousand times bigger than the space program. This would take ENORMOUS amounts of money. If he were taking this seriously it would be quite obvious.

Look: "We have the technology to manufacture cars with far better gas mileage...."
That's not what I'm looking for here.
AND, I haven't heard him say a damned thing about the Saudis.

[blm]

29. Read ALL of his stuff. He's been on top of it for 30 yrs.

He was the first legislator to link the environment and oil independence to national security. he has spoken many times on this.

My point was that if you were serious about this as an issue you'd read everything you could on it. Kerry has plenty available to read.

When he said the search for alternative fuel should be treated with the same dedication as the space program, he means the money needed, as MUCH as is needed will be made available to ACHIEVE that goal. The thrust of the comparison is that you set that goal and DEDICATE your administration to ACHIEVING that goal. Reach for the moon here on Earth. Look into it.

btw...you do know that Kerry helped craft the Kyoto Accord don't you? He's no election year environmentalist.

[Guaranteed]

33. Oddly enough

this is hardly even an environmental issue. The environment is the least of the problems that should push us to this.

Alright, so you say Kerry understood the connection between oil and national security. So why hasn't he come out against the Saudis? AND, if he knew all this crap was over oil, then WHY did he vote for the IWR? This is conviction? Could he even pull this off? This isn't just an issue to run on and call your own. This is something that desperately needs to happen in our country. Is he going to follow through? Does he understand that we actually need INDEPENDENCE, not just "cutting down?"

Also, he says he needs a decade to do it. That's way too long. And it makes it sound like a token program. This isn't something that would be "neat," like the space race. You don't just let this happen on its own. This one needs to be the number one priority of our country.
And, you know, FDR didn't want ten years. It needs to be done, and done QUICKLY.

I think of this as a life or death issue for our country. I don't hear anyone, including Kerry, talking about it in those terms. No one has the passion for it that it deserves. It should be the CENTRAL issue to our candidate's campaign.

[blm]

36. He has done exactly what you have said, and yet you won't bother

to go to his site and read his Harvard speech on the environment earlier this year and probably no more than I posted here from his NH speech.

By the way, the environment is also a big part of his economy speech because he thinks we'll have the strongest economy by inventing our way out of a deficit, easpecially in regard to alternate fuels.

[Guaranteed]

37. Alright I was looking for it

but I didn't see it. What's the date?

[blm]

39. Here's a start for you

http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2003_0613.html

A New Manhattan Project

June  13,  2003
Cedar Rapids, IA
On September 11th, 2001 - one block away from that site - the World Trade Center was brought down in another sudden, sneak attack, the most brutal and deadly attack America has ever known. The federal office building at 90 Church Street was damaged but still stands.

To this generation, September 11th was our December, 7th - and it calls for a response equally profound - not just in armed force, although that is essential - but in the imagination, the daring and the sense of exploration that define America at its best.

Terrorism is the new Fascism, the new Communism, the new totalitarianism - a grave and global threat to our values and our way of life. We can defeat it; we must defeat it; and we will defeat it; but we need more than hard words and powerful weaponry. In a different direction, in a different way, we need to reach as high as Roosevelt reached - with a new national initiative on the scale of the Manhattan Project to harness our thinking and our technology - this time, not to create a new kind of bomb, but to develop new forms of energy that will at long last make America more energy independent.
So I have come here today to set out a strategy for greater energy independence - so that within a decade, this nation will no longer have to rely on Mideast oil. And in achieving that new form of freedom for America, we can at the same time clean the environment and create new jobs for half a million Americans.

With sixty-five percent of the world's oil reserves in Middle East, our over-reliance on oil presents a real threat to national security. We can unleash the spirit of American ingenuity to meet this challenge. My strategy calls for new investments in research, new incentives for companies and consumers, new partnership across the old dividing lines, and higher standards of energy efficiency for both business and government to meet. We can create Americans jobs and confront the dangers to our environment at the same time as we make this nation safer, stronger, and more secure.

The challenge will not be easy but neither was the Manhattan Project. It will require real resources and strong leadership and an unwavering will to make tough choices and take on entrenched interests. But America has shown again and again that when we come together to address the challenges of the day, we will succeed. The message that I bring with me is one that I will carry to every part of our country in this campaign - and it will be central to my Presidency: If we care about the national security of America, we can settle for nothing less than energy security for America. The cause is urgent, and the time is now.

We need boldness to match the challenges before us. Toughness to meet the threats we face. But with George Bush in the White House, all we've had is politics as usual. And after September 11th, that is just not acceptable.
Time and again he has postponed, equivocated, done nothing or done the wrong thing. I believe that in the war on terror, we have to find Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein - and I wish we already had. But in seeking energy independence, we have to do more than find a little more oil by drilling in and despoiling the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge - it does far more harm than good, and it is wrong for our future.

Today we have an energy policy of big oil, by big oil and for big oil. It may work for their profits, but it will never work for America. And yet George Bush persists in pursuing a course that can only be described as energy dependence - an approach, that despite all his boasts about a stronger America, will actually risk our hopes, make us weaker, and make both our economy and our country more vulnerable to blackmail by hostile powers.
>>>>>>>>

[blm]

40. and another

http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2002_0122.html

>>>>>>>
Obviously we all agree that reducing our dependence on foreign oil, especially oil from the politically toxic Middle East, is a necessity. But the American people want honesty about how you do it, not a false security blanket that promises something undeliverable in the short term and precious little amounting to real progress in the long term.

In recent months, I've talked to citizens across our country, to businesspeople, farmers and the energy industry; to academic experts and local officials; to the public health community and public interest organizations, and I have found that more and more Americans "get it." They are dissatisfied with the fossil-fuel based energy policies that made sense fifty years ago, but which cannot sustain our nation in the future. They are frustrated because we don't pursue alternatives they know we could adopt. They want an economy where hardworking citizens can't automatically be held hostage to the whims of a handful of nations that rig the world oil market. They want leaders setting an agenda where protecting our environment, our land, our water, our air and our public health are national priorities, not after-thoughts. They want a country where energy security is not just a slogan or an empty promise, but a growing reality. It is with all of their views and with their input, expertise and practical experience that I respectfully suggest it is time now to pursue a national Strategic Energy Initiative.

This is an initiative born out of necessity and its goal is quite simply to initiate a transition from our heavy dependence on polluting and sometimes insecure fossil fuels to more efficient, clean, and reliable energy. It maximizes private sector opportunities and avoids the mistake of command and control. It plays to our entrepenuerial skill as Americans but it commits us as a nation to move in a certain direction.

While we may not all recognize it, America has made exactly the sort of energy transition I am calling for more than once before. For much of the 1800s our primary source of energy was wood. By the late 1800s coal was king and oil accounted for only 3 percent of our energy. That changed when the automobile went into mass production and demand for gasoline soared. By the end of World War II, oil was the nation's dominant energy source. Natural gas, once burned off as waste, was added to the energy mix in the '40s. Nuclear power came online in the '50s. And today we are fueled by a mix of oil, gas, coal, nuclear and hydroelectric power. It has been our history to evolve from one fuel source to another gradually and economically. Now we need to prepare our nation for the 21st Century and begin a gradual economic transition to domestic, clean and reliable energy technologies.
I know that, for some, it may be hard to conceive of a world where fossil fuels, and especially petroleum, are not the dominant sources of fuel. One hundred and fifty years ago, in New Bedford and Nantucket, folks couldn't conceive of a future that didn't depend on whale oil. Prophesying is a risky business. Even the experts are often wrong: Western Union in 1876 said the telephone had too many flaws to be considered seriously as a means of communication. The Chairman of IBM in 1943 predicted that the world market for computers would peak at five. The President of Digital Corporation was saying as late as 1977, "there is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."

In fact, the story of computers over the past two decades may be a good parallel for the story of energy in America and the world over the coming decades. From mainframe to P.C.. From big scale to small. One technological breakthrough after another. Leading to an even more competitive American and global economy.

Certainly it is part of America's history to drive technology and shape the marketplace to achieve our shared objectives. In the 1930s only 10 percent of rural America had electric service. Utilities refused to develop rural counties because homes were too far apart to make the investment profitable. To push the market and to bring electric power to all American homes, Congress used more than $5 billion in federal money to finance utilities to build in rural areas. By the 1950s, nearly all farms and rural areas had electric service and loans were largely repaid.

Today there is a compelling national interest to address the security and environmental threats of fossil fuels. Just as we did in the 1930s and many times since, we should nourish the marketplace, set goals and create incentives that will begin a transition.
>>>>>>>

[blm]

41. and another excerpt

http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2003_0209.html

>>>>>>>>>
Economy

 And the good news is our progress in technology and the lessons of the past three decades, have taught us that cleaning up the environment will strengthen not weaken our economy.  We need to push back on the scaremongering which falsely portrays pollution as the price of prosperity.  We don't have to choose between jobs and the environment.  Protecting the environment is jobs - the high value added jobs of the future.

 This is not pie-in-the-sky, tree hugging, do-gooder environmental day dreaming. This is real. It's happening in pioneering efforts across the country and across the globe. It awaits our leadership.  When I hear the polluters and their favored politicians invoke the issue of jobs and growth, my response is: It is  not us who should be on the defensive - it's them and it's time we put them there.

 In doing so, we cannot talk vague generalities. We must show real jobs, real costs, real transition numbers. We must show that our next generation of environmental solutions represent the least intrusive, most cost effective ways of doing the job. We must show the growth in demand in America and precisely how we will meet it, not just without loss but with gain in the quality of our lives.

 We know if we invest in new technologies we can build cars and SUVs that are twice and three times as efficient as today - and one day a car that relies on no oil at all. And a company that may help build that car can be found right there in Cambridge; it's called Nuvera Fuel Cells and it's putting fuel cell components in prototype cars today. We know if we support promising research, we can get cleaner coal, renewable sources of energy like wind and solar energy, light our homes and businesses with fuel cells, and run power plants that don't turn the jet stream into a river of pollution.   And today the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 103  is taking the lead by training technicians in the maintenance and installation of solar.
 Minnesota now requires that a percentage of its electricity be generated from the wind, and family farmers have gone into the power business. In Woodstock, Minnesota, Richard and Roger Kas have built 17 wind turbines on their land, creating enough electricity to power more than 2,000 homes. Other farmers are literally growing renewable fuels in their fields which will bring warmth and light to our homes. 

 For Americans who work in engineering, design, and industry, the growth of wind, solar and geothermal can spark an unprecedented surge in production. And since developing new energy technologies is a research-driven, pathbreaking activity, a commitment to it will yield thousands and ultimately hundreds of thousands of well-paying new jobs. The machines of renewable energy will be made of steel, aluminum and glass. They will be machined, manufactured, distributed and maintained. And in that historic effort, I do not want and we cannot afford to see this country take a backseat to the Germans or the Japanese. This new direction for America can create new jobs for Americans, and it's up to us to make our economy second to none on this technological frontier. 

 Building more efficient cars and SUVs will not only save millions of barrels of oil a day;  in the end, it will create or sustain millions jobs. So will building high-speed rail and 21st century transit.

 The possibilities are limitless. But it will take a commitment as broad and bold as sending a man to the moon.  And we can't fulfill that commitment by sending the environment to the back of the budget - and putting the polluters in charge, in secret, behind closed doors.

Energy Security Is National Security

 In the end, though, our concerns about the environment are not just about the economy and quality of life here at home. Make no mistake: our environment and energy policies are critical to national our security.

 The Bush-Cheney energy policies leave us at the mercy of a region racked with violence and instability, now more than ever.

 We can no longer tolerate a dependence on foreign oil, that could be cut-off amid global chaos at the whim of unstable tyrants like Saddam Hussein.

 The Bush Administration thinks we can drill our way out of our energy problems. And their solution is to drill in one of our precious national treasures - the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. That's not an energy policy, that's simply the needless pursuit of profit.

 They brought this plan to the United States Senate -- and we stopped them. Now they say they will try again - and I pledge to you that we will stop them again. 

 This Administration likes fuzzy math but any child can do the math on oil. The fact is when 65% of the world's oil supply is in the Gulf and only 3% in America. There is no way we can drill our way to energy independence. We have to invent our way there.

 A founding member of the OPEC oil cartel said years ago that the Stone Age didn't end because we ran out of stones, and the oil age won't end because we run out of oil. At the start of the 21st century, we have new possibilities to develop technologies that advance both our economy and our environment -- and at the same time become a nation and a world less and less dependent on oil.

 We can create a market for clean, domestic, reliable energy with a national standard for renewable power in the electricity sector. I believe we should set a national goal of having 20% of our electricity come from domestic alternative and renewable sources by the year 2020. Twenty-twenty - I think it's a vision worthy of America; a goal I believe our citizens are ready to embrace.  We can reform the tax code to end the federal largess given to polluting fuels and invest instead in the technologies that will make our homes and businesses and transportation more efficient and bring renewable energy to market. We can cut our dependence on foreign oil by building more efficient cars and SUVs and creating a national market for the biofuels grown on farms across the nation.

 Domestic, renewable sources are urgently needed now because they are entirely under our control. No foreign government can embargo them. No terrorist can seize control of them. No cartel can play games with them. No American soldier will have to risk his or her life to protect them. For all those reasons -- to create a better, more secure and cleaner environment -- and to move to real energy security -- I believe even the most rock-ribbed conservative would agree we must take steps that go beyond what market forces will do on their own.

 We should be the world's environmental leader. Our global environmental policy should be driven by our convictions, not our constraints. America has not led but fled on the issue of global warming. The first President Bush was willing to lead on this issue. But the second President Bush's declaration that the Kyoto Protocol was simply Dead on Arrival spoke for itself - and it spoke in dozens of languages as his words whipped instantly around the globe. What the Administration failed to see was that Kyoto was not just an agreement; it represented the resolve of 160 nations working together over 10 years. It was a good faith effort - and the United States just dismissed it. We didn't aim to mend it. We didn't aim to sit down with our allies and find a compromise. We didn't aim for a new dialogue. The Administration was simply ready to aim and fire, and the target they hit was our international reputation. This country can and should aim higher than preserving its place as the world's largest unfettered polluter. We should assert, not abandon our leadership in addressing global economic degradation and the warming of the atmosphere that if left unchecked, will do untold damage to our coastline and our Great Plains, our cities and our economy.

 We should be the world's leader in sustainable developmental. We should be the world's leader in technology transfer and technical assistance to meet a host of environmental and health challenges. Several years ago I worked with the World Bank to organize the first sustainable development conference in Southeast Asia  to help Vietnam consider the balance of development and sustainability so Hanoi doesn't become Beijing, a city where people have to wear surgical masks just to take a breath of air.   avoid breathing the dirty air. We brought corporations and scientists and engineers to the table to find cleaner ways for Vietnam to develop. The question is why we're not doing that everywhere around the globe; the question is why we don't have a President who recognizes that friends we rely on to clean up on the environment are friends we can call on help clean out the stables of terrorism.

 If we are going to be true stewards for the air, water and land, for our nation and the earth itself, we must remember that we are all in this together. This is about our values. It is about who we are as a people.
>>>>>>>>

[Guaranteed]

46. Well he certainly understands

the problem. But....does he have the resolve? Yeah...this would be really, really big. And not easy. We're talking Civil War.....New Deal.....Alternative Energy.
Those are good speeches. But I'd like to know exactly how much taxpayer money he's willing to commit to this, and how hard he'd push it forward.

On edit: I'd also really like to hear him take some shots at the Saudis. I think to show that you're serious, you've got to do that. Maybe burn a bridge, in good faith.

[blm]

55. He is absolutely DOGGED about it.

He firmly believes that the future economy and our national security are completely tied to alternative fuels.

There are many more speeches where he addresses this, and you can find them on his site under all speeches. I only excerpted three of them. But Kerry talks strongly about it ALL the time on the stump, too. I think his rejection of big oil is a big reason why the press won't cover him on substance, and will only talk about him in terms of horserace. They don't want Kerry to be heard.

[Guaranteed]

44. Good start for HIM nt

[Blue_Roses]

27. Kerry has discussed this

but his approach is so long-winded. The average uniformed American wants to see the results now. I think if he answered straight to the point and didn't go all around the world proving his case, the response from Americans might be different.

I watched him in the debates and sometimes I just want to scream, "get to the point."

I like John Kerry and I think he has alot of good things going on, but after watching Clinton tonight on C-SPAN, I see what made him successful (other than a brilliant mind). He got to the point of his message.

[Guaranteed]

30. It's not enough anyway.

It sounds like token crap to me. The legitimate solution to this problem will be THE central issue, to be returned to constantly in speeches, to the candidate's campaign.
All of our country's resources would be more or less centered around it. Our education system would even have to be retooled to accomodate the emphasis on the new energy source. Gas stations would have to be shut down, retrofitted, and reopened. The government would probably have to give away new cars to people. I mean, this thing is huge. Everything would be related to it somehow if a candidate was really trying to solve the problem.

[RC]

19. Massive overhaul coupled with long prison sentences.

Otherwise these criminals will just continue with their wars and corruption.

[Guaranteed]

21. Right...

I do think we have to give huge...and I mean HUGE...monetary incentive, also...we have to find a way to force them, but also make it worth their while.
Again: Tons and tons of money.

[hippywife]

54. Kucinich, Energy Policy, and Sustainability

20% renewable by 2010.

http://www.gristmagazine.com/maindish/kucinich101503.asp

Kucinich: As a peace advocate, I will launch a major renewables effort Middle East oil fields not loom so large as strategic or military targets. There has to be a renewable energy portfolio of 20 percent by 2010. And that means introducing wind, solar, hydrogen, geothermal, biomass, and all of the options that must be available and need incentivizing. That also means withdrawing incentives for the production of nonrenewable energy. I'm not talking about building new hydro dams; I'm not talking about damming up more rivers and streams.


And it doesn't need to have "shots at the Saudis". The idea is to compel American industry to remove ourselves from the sway of ME oil producing countries without continuing or heating new conflicts in the area.

[david_vincent]

12. One of my pet rants...

is wondering why Americans haven't embraced propane as a fuel for cars the way Canadians have.
If you go over the border, you'll find lots of folks who have converted their cars or pickups to propane. Not just the smarty-pants urbanites, either - in B.C., most of the backwoods guys are driving around on propane (loggers, heavy equipment operators, etc.) I know this from firsthand experience.
It has always utterly baffled me why Canadians have, to some degree, accepted this alternative, while Americans remain so utterly resistant to options.

[E Pluribus Unum]

59. I used to live in Nebraska where I worked as an

agronomist working with farmers. Many of the farmers did
converet their trucks to propane. I remember that it costs initially about $2,000 dollars to eguip the engine to burn propane.
This included a large tank in the bed of the truck which took
up lots of space. Then if you drove any distance such as another
state you had a much more difficult time finding propane to fill up.
I also remember them telling me that you had to drive tens of thousands of miles before the lower propane cost began to pay off.
So I guess I am trying to say that there are reasons why people do not change over to propane that much.

[ShaneGR]

13. Ethanol

Big for Edwards.

[rucky]

18. Solves Two Problems

Definately should be a stump topic for him...specially in Iowa

[Guaranteed]

15. If America is going to save itself,

this is what we have to do. And we'd better do it quick.

[julka]

20. where'd you go to school, Communist Martyrs?

[Guaranteed]

22. I'm only a commie for this one issue.

This is one issue where people need a serious kick in the ass, for the environment, our national security, AND our economy.

[julka]

23. thought so.....once a commie.........

[julka]

24. just so you'll know

[Iverson]

53. Shoes for industry, daddyo.

n/t

[julka]

71. I'm just a spy......

and a girl delighter

[Guaranteed]

25. You know I think

just about everyone knows that we're gonna have to do this on an absolutely massive level. But I think people are just too scared to take it on. It's a huge amount of money and just the plan itself would take a lot of work (and inspiration). I also suspect that people are worried about making enemies in the oil industry. But for the good of the country we're going to have to do this, and do it right.

[Blue_Roses]

31. goes to what I was saying

in another thread about what Clinton was saying on C-SPAN tonight.

Did you see him talk about this very subject...was great.

[TheDonkey]

26. John Kerry is vocal about it

and a major reason why I support him. It's a VERY big deal.

Clark also touched on it but nothing specific, but anything is better than nothing.

[Guaranteed]

28. I understand he's addressing the issue...

and so is Dean. But if it's not a massive, trillion dollar + plan, it's not enough. Making cars more gas efficient is great and all, but our oil demand is already skyrocketing. It's not even enough to level out the demand. We have to completely wean ourselves off of oil. And we're going to have to force our businesses to do it, too (both with punishment and massive, I mean massive, incentives), because they're too comfortable with the deal they have going on right now. We have to show them that they're our buddies, but they don't have a choice.
I think a good start would be throwing out a standing offer that anyone to come up with the technology AND a solid, workable plan to make the US completely independent from oil within a certain amount of time (let's say, 2-3 years) would receive, say, $100 billion upon presentation. We can use the capitalist incentive, still, to come up with the technology and the plan.
It's going to be the implementation that'll be the tough part. But it'll be a combination of brute, executive force and economic incentive and subsidies.

[Blue_Roses]

35. You know

Clinton used a Churchill quote that makes the case for your statement: "Americans always do the right thing when they've done everything else!" How true.

If it was up to you, me and many others who like growth and change, it would have already been implemented, or at least started.

But as you know, we are dealing with a very stubborn group who DO NOT like change--even if it meant they COULD MAKE MORE MONEY--cause let's be honest, that's what it all boils down too. That and God for the conservatives who are waiting for Armageddan!

[9215]

32. Carter tried and

look what happened to him. Big oil considers alternative energy, not surprisingly, the biggest threat to its future. The first thing Reagan did when he entered the White House was rip down the solar panels Carter had installed.

The argument for alternatives seldom incorporates all the costs of fossil fuels, ie. the Military Industrial Complex, The Defense Dept., the Environmental costs and social costs of pollution.

The petro dollar problem has been around for at least 30 years since the Arab Oil Embargo. Reagan thought that the Saudi and Kuwaiti investment in US T Bills so sensititive that he classified the info. Later it was determined that they owned, in combination, about 25% of them.

It is complicated, but I think that the US needs to break (politically destroy) the BFEE before it has a chance of weening itself off of oil. With all the evidence of Saudi financed terrorism the US could seize their assets if we had a balzy enough leader.

Google: petrodollar+Saudi

[Guaranteed]

34. Yup

It's the central issue.

[9215]

38. Heck, we already got the troops in Iraq, just move em' nextdoor,hee

hee.

Only half serious here; I don't know how the rest of the Mid-East, or UN would react. Though it seems plausible that if we presented the case to the UN that they would be all for stopping the international terrorism at its root.

The evidence for the Saudis being behind Al Qaeda is much greater than Iraq as a backer. Of course the Bushboy isn't going to do it for numerous reasons, but the main one is what most of us know: they are in cahoots with the Saudis.

If the US just started going after the "real" terrorists alot of these other problems like energy, the environment, would sort themselves out IMHO because the political base of those going against the public will would be greatly weakened and we would be able to stop alot of the activities that undermine sound national policy.

For instance in research I've found that the Duponts have done to the paper industry what the BFEE has done to energy as GM has done to mass transit. Dupont developed a paper making process from wood that we have grown familiar with and then they set about to kill the competition and that was hemp. In the 30's Dupont pushed for legislation to ban hemp (((in a noble attempt to prevent reefer madness,))) but in actuality to kill a key competitor of their products. If "renewable paper"/hemp was used we would ameliorate the deforestation problem, but then the lumber industry might not like the hemp industry moving in on their turf.

I saw Dean's plan and I think it is ambitious and he is the type of fighter we need to push for these kinds of things, but I hope he understands what happened to Carter and that those same powers are here now to repeat history. That is why I think Big Oil/BFEE needs to be brought under control or even the industry nationalized for the sake of national security.

Here is another discussion on this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=142563

[Guaranteed]

45. There's a lot more political

ammunition for this kind of thing, now, though. I think anybody with a halfway decent understanding of what's going on here would agree that we need to stop giving money to people who are trying to kill us. I think Carter was a good guy, but Dean's different, and these are certainly different times. I think we've got the truth on our side and we can really do this.

[9215]

65. Hope you are right

But even today I don't see alot of understanding of just how malicious the BFEE, et.al. can be. I've discussed the topic of alternative energy many times and most people just stick tothe technological issues and not the huge special interest conflict.

Everybody was saying the stocks in the stock market bubble of the 90's were "different" from traditional valuations and look what happened. They weren't so different after all.


Dean may have a grip on how to deal with this.


Good topic you started.

[sandnsea]

42. $10 billion Hydrogen Institute, just ONE item

Here's a quote on 2 different programs from a TNR article. The article is basically a right wing slash piece, but it at least shows Kerry isn't just introducing a little $1 billion program.

"Kerry wants a $20 billion Energy Security and Conservation Trust Fund and a $10 billion Hydrogen Institute."

http://www.tnr.com/primary/index.mhtml?pid=478

Here he's talking about $1 billion for just one program.

"My plan invests $1 billion a year to help the auto industry convert to new plants to build more energy-efficient vehicles - to make sure the jobs of the future stay right here in America."

http://www.lcv.org/Campaigns/Campaigns.cfm?ID=1653&c=4

I don't know where people get their ideas sometimes.

[Guaranteed]

43. Well I'm sure that's

gonna put a real dent in the Saudi's pocketbook.

[sandnsea]

47. chronic malcontents

You start off with a thread about a billion dollar plan, I give you a couple of examples to show you that you're wrong, you refuse to admit it and complain some more. Some people are just chronic malcontents I guess.

[Guaranteed]

48. Did I say billion?

No.
I said hundreds of billions, if not trillions. Did you read any of the rest of the thread?

On edit: Heck just read the second paragraph of my original post. Criminy.

[sandnsea]

51. $1.3 billion token crap

That's what you said.

[Guaranteed]

62. I also said

it's going to take trillions.

[Guaranteed]

49. Psssh.

$10B hydrogen institute. Whatever. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CHANGING THE ENTIRE ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE UNITED STATES. You'd be lucky if $10B would take care of Rhode Island.

[sandnsea]

52. That is ONE tiny piece

It is just an example of how your $1.3 billion token crap is wrong. You want to hate Kerry, hate him. But don't put up lies to support your hatred.

[Guaranteed]

63. I don't hate Kerry

I don't hate any of our candidates.
But none of the candidates are addressing this sufficiently.

[blm]

58. He HAS the big picture

but it seems you are more concerned with believing your own assertion that NO candidate is talking about this or has a plan for this. We have shown you that Kerry does, and intends to fully fund it however much it needs because he firmly believes that alternative fuels are inextricably linked with our future economy and national security.

[Guaranteed]

64. You're not concerned with the issue.

All you want to talk about is how Kerry is so great.

[blm]

67. It's one of the biggest reasons

I am for Kerry.

You posted that none of the candidates are even addressing this issue, yet there is plenty of proof that Kerry is doing so much more comprehensively and assertively and CONSISTENTLY than you first thought, right? So, why pan the guy and say he's not doing enough, when what he is saying obviously is much more significant than you were even aware of at this time?

Those environmentalists who stay on top of these issues know what Kerry is proposing.

[Guaranteed]

68. I'll give you

it was more significant, but not significant enough.
Of course, you could be blowing it up. Because, in reality, I've watched the debates, and I haven't heard him talk about it.

[blm]

70. They answer QUESTIONS from the moderator at the debates.

He has inserted some policy in when he could.

But, on the stump he hammers it home almost every speech.

[iangb]

50. Because it's political suicide.

Suggesting that there's a 'crisis' (I know there is but....) will frighten people away from the Dems to whoever reassures them that there's an endless supply of cheap gas to run their cars.

Guess who that is.

[phillybri]

60. But dependence on foreign oil is a SECURITY issue....

When people realize this, it becomes a little more urgent...

[Nederland]

56. Hint: The Era of Big Government is Over

The reason no candidates are doing what you propose is because what you propose is old school thinking. Creating a trillion dollar federal program has colossal waste written all over it. What you need to do is change the economics of the situation and let the market do the work for you. If we end the subsidies that currently make oil an attractive energy source, alternatives will suddenly become more attractive. Once you make something more attractive on a purely monetary basis, industry will make the change all by themselves at a much more efficient price tag than some bloated government bureaucracy can.

[blm]

57. That's what Kerry says.

Thanks.

[Guaranteed]

61. See?

Like I've been saying, over and over, you can't let capitalism take care of this. This has to be rammed down the throats of those corporate bastards or they aren't going to go for it. Since Kerry is trying to use capitalist principles to solve this problem, he's not addressing this sufficiently.

You keep telling me I'm wrong, but then you say things like that. I wonder if you even know what I'm talking about.

On edit: Like I also said before, capitalism can help, especially in the beginning, with coming up with a plan and finding the technology. But the implementation is the hard part. In order to actually get that done, so that virtually NOBODY is using oil, you have to use governmental muscle.

[Nederland]

66. Completely backwards

You've got it completely backwards. Capitalism helps the most at the end, not the beginning. Capitalism isn't very good at doing basic research because the prospect of coming up with something of value (read: something that makes you money) is so distant. Once the basic technology is in place and there is money to be made, however, capitalism is very good at quickly and efficiently moving the solution into the mainstream. This is the state where we are at right now with regard to alternative energy. The basic research has been done and a large number of alternatives exist: biomass, ethanol, fuel cells, solar cells, wind energy, etc. What is needed is the government to take away the subsidies associated with oil (and incorporating externalities like military spending into the price of oil) that make those technologies uncompetative. Once you create a situation where using alternative energy is actually cheaper than using oil, government should simply step out of the way and let the market work.

[Guaranteed]

69. What I had in mind

was the feds putting up a $100B bounty for the technology and a comprehensive plan to do the job, and letting the corporations duke it out. I think that would work. Of course, that's the easy part.