Good info on candidates energy proposals

[bigendian]

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2008-09-10-candidates-energy-policy_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip


Bottom line:

Energy prices will go up during the transition to alternatives no matter what the alternatives are.
But prices will go up AND we will help destroy the environment if we don't do anything.
In my opinion, market force won't apply enough pressure on industry fast enough. They will deplete whatever resources they can until they must invest in new tech.

[GliderGuider]

1. Neither of the candidates appear to recognize what's happening

Within the first term of the next administration there is going to be a liquid fuel crisis in the USA, due to prices being squeezed up by falling international exports (especially Mexico). Nothing either of the candidates are proposing will address a fuel crisis on that time line.

Market forces won't cut it, and legislation will not be enacted in time due to a combination of industry pressure and systemic blindness. Demand destruction and its economic knock-on effects are in the cards.

[bigendian]

2. Questions.

"Demand destructon" means no demand for fuel? I don't know what "knock-on" means either.

[phantom power]

3. Demand destruction...

means reduction in demand for a product, service, etc. Because oil has increased in price, people are using less of it. That is demand destruction. There are different kinds of demand destruction. For instance, you might start car-pooling. Or, if you are a long-haul trucker, you might go out of business and your family ends up in poverty. Or, gas prices eat up more disposable income, and people buy less stuff, which in turn reduces oil used for manufacturing and transporting goods.

"knock-on effect" is more of less a synonym for "ripple effect."

[bigendian]

4. Thanks.

It seems this will likely happen.
Now the question is, will the next president give the people an honest assessment of the coming hardships? I am an adult and can handle the truth. What I have a hard time with is with glossing over a problem while deferring the hard choices for political expediency.
A true leader will be straight with us and also share the burden. I am already reducing my usage of gas/oil and electricity among other things. No biggie. But I do feel a world of hurt coming. Especially for those with less than me.

[GliderGuider]

5. "will the next president give the people an honest assessment of the coming hardships?"

The short answer is, "No."

You may be an adult, but the majority of the electorate aren't. They don't want bad news. They want to be told that there isn't a problem, or if there is it's not big, or if it's big that a solution is at hand. By the time people find out they've been coddled and lied to, it's too late.

The other problem is if a leader tells the public the unvarnished, unpalatable truth, the opposition will have no compunctions about beating them up for it (and lying in the process) in order to win votes next time. That's because to you and me this stuff may be life and death, but to them (on both sides of the aisle) it's just another move in the power game.

If you have a good tolerance for this sort of insight, try reading Political Will, Political Won't.

[phantom power]

6. Prisoner's Dilemma

[GliderGuider]

7. Ayup

Actually, the whole ball of nasty wax, including energy problems, reducing CO2 emissions, consuming less stuff, can be considered as an n-person Prisoner's Dilemma. That's why we collectively won't fix any of these big problems voluntarily -- the probability of being left with a sucker's payoff is simply too high for all but the most altruistic to accept.