2009 and Beyone: Some playfull What If's

[nels25]

I have found that both the joy and the curse of having a history degree is that one can look at an over all development situation and posture the following: What if?? Historian's have a lofty term for this know as counter-factual ism.

With this in mind I am going to make a small attempt at prognostication of the next 2 or may be 4 years (I pick up immediately after the inauguration of a Democrat to the presidency (most likely Barack Obama)) next Jan 20).

It goes with out saying that the incoming president will have 2 immediate situations to deal with, the economy and energy.

The trick with the economy is to energize someone spending a buck, this can and most likely should be a combination of government (I love the idea of an updated WPA) and consumer. Basic economics is spend a dollar and the person/business who gets that one spends it, and it gets spent and turn around a bunch of times, results (or so I was taught in basic Econ) was economic growth.

Business should be encouraged to make things, and that means bringing manufacturing jobs back to the US. BUT!!! here is where it could and probably will get tricky. It would be nice to think that nations like China, India, Mexico ct-al will let us pass legislation and re-negotiate trade pacts to help re-invigorate our manufacturing base. However the sad fact is why should they? Where is the incentive for them to do so?? Crack that nut and you have progress on our trade/job problem.

Energy is another more difficult one that it may first appear. We as a party just assume that the drilling issue will always cut our way, and for the most part believe that we have won it. Perhaps, but?? Let fuel get to the west part of $7 or more a gallon with oil pushing to $200 and beyond a barrel and the issue will come up again. Add to it that other nations such as China, Venezuela, Brazil, and even Cuba are not so reticent about accessing their oil deposits and the cry to drill may grow louder.

In addition, the carbon footprint and other green ideas have to be better explained to the public as a whole (nuts I do not even really understand what a carbon footprint is supposed to be) and this becomes absolutely required if any kind of tax or cost becomes involved.

I am also cutting President Obama some slack in the social areas, it would help if the social activists would hold their fire concerning issues such as same sex marriage at least for the first 6 months, I realize what I am asking but much needs to be done and that issue is to some degree toxic at the national level and we have to acknowledge that.

How President Obama handles the Iraq draw down (notice the tense I used) will also bare note, especially on how Iran acts while it is being conducted. Unlike many others I do not see Iran as a benign and peacefully nation, I believe it's people as whole do not desire a fight, there government is another story. They may be excused most of their present actions due to the present administration in power. The actions they take under an Obama administration are a different thing all together, and Barack must be aware of it. So far I have no problem with his approach, but remember that a large proportion of historian's regard President Kennedy's meeting with Kruschev (SP) in the summer of 1961 in Vienna as a failure that led to the Berlin Wall and to some degree the Cuban Missile Crises of the next year.

Not saying that Obama will have the same difficulty just saying he needs to be flexible and smart.

We could govern in such a way as to reinvigorate the New Deal ideas of 70 years ago.

We could also end up like the presidency of Jimmy Carter. Carter had a unified government behind him and still failed on some important issues. He was handed over a very bad economy by the departing GOP and some argue to this day he fumbled it, one thing is not beyond argument the overall economic indicators were no better in November 1980 than they were in January 1977.

The public rejected his energy policy immediately after Reagan took office (and remember there was a Democratic majority in the House). In retrospect Carter has been proven to be right on the money, however the nation as a whole was not willing to make the life style modifications required back then. The life style modifications that will be required are much bigger that 30 years ago, and we must remember that there was a blow back then and prepare for a similar one now.

I have omitted any foreign policy problem save a small comment on Iraq, any number of things could happen that could make President Obama's life even more difficult.

And always remember that although beaten the GOP will still exist, and re-build it's self.:hi:

Thoghts or commentary please??

[electropop]

1. With proper energy investments, quality of life can go UP.

When you invest in a CF bulb, you get the same amount of light you had before (same quality of life), but over time, you save so much energy the bulb pays for itself (and you can spend the remainder - better quality of life), and you dramatically cut the coal burned to operate the bulb. It's similar with renewables. By shifting the massive government subsidies from fossil fuel companies to renewables companies, you enable rapid improvements in scale, cost, and efficiency, ultimately saving everybody money while still delivering the energy (same quality of life) and reducing pollution (improved quality of life), and ultimately saving money (improved quality of life).

[nels25]

3. Agreed

but that is just part of the answer. The biggest and most obvious problem (and the one that ultimately sunk the Carter energy initiatives) is the american population love of their auto's combined with the ever lengthening requirement of commuting to a job (I have to travel around 20 mile on way each day). Most of my friends have long since sworn off Sat/sun drives (more is the pity since me and my bride enjoyed that form of leisure immensely).

How do you ween americans off cars and still make employment possible (and of course you have to be able to do so with out the GOP arguing that we as Democrats are using the big bad arm of the government to engender unwanted change on people).

BTW: Is the CW bulb the one that contains Mercury?? Also I have changed all my bulbs in my house to energy saving ones. It has helped.

[electropop]

5. The mercury thing is another right wing red herring.

"Do CFLs contain mercury?
CFLs contain a very small amount of mercury sealed within the glass tubing – an average of 5 milligrams – about the amount that would cover the tip of a ballpoint pen. By comparison, older thermometers contain about 500 milligrams of mercury. It would take 100 CFLs to equal that amount.
Mercury currently is an essential component of CFLs and is what allows the bulb to be an efficient light source. No mercury is released when the bulbs are intact or in use. Many manufacturers have taken significant steps to reduce mercury used in their fluorescent lighting products. In fact, the average amount of mercury in a CFL is anticipated to drop by the end of 2007 thanks to technology advances and a commitment from members of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association.
...
What is mercury?
Mercury is an element (Hg on the periodic table) found naturally in the environment. Mercury emissions in the air can come from both natural and man-made sources. Coal-fired power plants are the largest man-made source because mercury that naturally exists in coal is released into the air when coal is burned to make electricity. Coal-fired power generation accounts for roughly 40 percent of the mercury emissions in the U.S. EPA is implementing policies to reduce airborne mercury emissions. Under regulations EPA issued in 2005, mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants will drop by nearly 70 percent by 2018.
The use of CFLs reduces power demand, which helps reduce mercury emissions from power plants.
"

http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf

[electropop]

8. More on the right-wing mercury malarky

"A June 2007 article calculated that the overall mercury emission by CFLs is less than the mercury released into the atmosphere by coal-fired power generation for series of equivalent incandescent lamps over the same period. Of course, not all electricity is coal generated, but the mercury from spent CFLs is not released into air if the bulbs are not broken in transport. Only 3% of CFL bulbs are properly disposed of or recycled. This comparison also only refers to the statistics of a CFL bulb surviving its full rated life. <40>

Although they make up only 19% of power generation in Canada,<41> coal power plants are "the largest uncontrolled industrial source of mercury emissions in Canada".<42> According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), when coal power is used, less mercury is released when fluorescent lamps are used, even including mercury in the lamps. <43> EPA is implementing policies to reduce airborne mercury emissions by coal plants, with an objective of 70% reducition by 2018. <44>

It may be instructive to note that the Albany Times Union reported that the annual mercury emissions of a single cement plant amounted to 400 pounds.<45> That amount roughly corresponds to the mercury content in 4,500 million compact fluorescent lamps."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mercury_emissions_by_light_source_%28en%29.svg

[nels25]

9. Thank you

since I did not know.

My friend has had energy saving lights in his house for over 5 years, says he hardly ever has to replace one.

[electropop]

12. I'm embarassed to admit I have one in a closet which has been on for 10 years.

The switch is broken and I'm too lazy to fix it. Makes a good demonstration though.

I also have a kitchen ceiling fan that takes little round bulbs. The incandescent version of the little bulbs always died within a week or two for some reason (fan vibration?). Replaced them with CF bulbs and they're great. It made a good selling point for my wife.

[tama]

2. POP

Obama, the Peak Oil President. He will have hell of the time explaining to the general public why their country is collapsing on his watch, wich won't make the POP popular. Instead of facing the reality and telling the public the real deal he might prefer another war in a foreign land and probably will - wasting even more of what oil is left and could be used to construct public transport, windmills etc. on futile insanity.

All the while revolution brewing on home front, chaos and mayham spreading, tough population control measures all the time in increasing need to give the failing system just some more extra time. I don't believe Obama will turn out to be a truly revolutionary president, wich is what it would take, and I certainly don't envy him.

[nels25]

4. I honestly can not imagine

that a President Obama would want to go looking for a war as Bush has.

I can however conceive a situation where he may be thrust into having to decide whether or not to use military force. (Say some dust up in the middle east or Pakistan post withdrawal from Iraq.)

[electropop]

7. We could tell the Middle East to go pound sand, if we invested in energy independence.

We wouldn't be jumping into every damn skirmish. Why the hell is that OUR job?

[tama]

10. Not wanting

but having no other option to avoid revolution on home front (assuming Obama is not ready or able to lead the revolution by himself).

Nobady can really imagine the social instability that PO will cause, and it will be worse than you cannot imagine.

[elizfeelinggreat]

6. I sure hope

he has the strength to tell them the truth - that the Bush administration fiddled away our surplus and put our country in a precarious position with their deregulation and for-corporate-profit government behavior.

Hey, maybe people who haven't been paying attention will understand cause and effect then!

If you don't believe in Obama perhaps you could believe that he will enable those who are revolutionary (Gore on the environment, Edwards on workers' rights and health care and others too numerous to mention) to work towards solutions instead of digging the hole deeper :) A democratic majority certainly makes that possible. It's too much to put everything on one persons shoulders but many people pulling together for a great cause might shift our country in the right direction - I have hope that can happen.

[nels25]

11. Could you indulge me in

your definition of revolutionary in the modern sense (meaning today).

I have a reason for this question.

When I was taking my history courses en route to my history degree, I developed a thesis about the possibility of a successfully revolt in a major industrialized country.

Simply put it would be nearly impossible to pull off with our a large part of the nation in questions armed forces join the revolt.

This is because weapons having become what they are, I get to deploy jet fighter, attack choppers, and state of the art tanks against road side bombs et-al. In a pitched no holds barred revolt the central government holds almost all the powerful cards if they choose to play them.

My history professor agreed with me.

I would be glad to discuss this with you.

[elizfeelinggreat]

14. not warfare

which seems to be what you're referring to. Good grief.

If the Democrats hold a majority in Congress why would anyone suggest that?

Please reread my post and the sentence I used that term in, perhaps I was using a bit of hyperbole but certainly not to the extent you were taking it! Revolutionary in the sense of changing our government's current attitude about the environment, health care, etc.

Obama, Gore and Edwards don't need to start a war on our country to have a big impact and help usher in change for the better. So please read the sentence, in context, again!

"If you don't believe in Obama perhaps you could believe that he will enable those who are revolutionary (Gore on the environment, Edwards on workers' rights and health care and others too numerous to mention) to work towards solutions instead of digging the hole deeper"

[tama]

13. Not enough

With causes of magnitude of Peak Oil and systemic crisis of capitalism, the revolutionary effect will be of equal magnitude. These are too big thoughts for most of us - who would rather not live "interesting times".

And as for democratic Congress, I just saw numbers that the public trust in US Congress is only half of that of Bush. Next precidency will not be business as usual, it is the start of the end of global capitalism, human civilization meeting the limits of growth.