Talks push for alternative fuels (BBC) (US abstains)

[cthrumatrix]

Talks push for alternative fuels

Green technologies will be a major topic of discussion
Environment and energy ministers from 20 countries are meeting in the UK to discuss climate change and how to reduce dependence on fossil fuels.

As well as representatives from the G8 group of rich nations, ministers from emerging economies such as China, India and Brazil are taking part.


snip

But the US administration has argued that meeting the target would cost millions of US jobs, many of them "exported" to developing countries where pollution would continue anyway.

"The target that was given to the United States was so unreasonable in our ability to meet it that the only way we could have met it was to shift energy intensive manufacturing to other countries," James Connaughton, head of the White House Council on Environment Quality, told the BBC.

snip

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4350481.stm

Of course the US which uses 25% of all oil (and only 5% of world population) CANNOT prarticipate.

Just like our politicians have NOT participated in alternative enrgy planning for 30-40 damn years.

What is the US plan when gas reaches $4 gallon?

[CottonBear]

1. How could alternative fuel development cost US jobs?

It seems to me that US jobs would be created.

In any case, I'm teaching my horse to drive (pull a cart in harnness). She'll be quite useful when gas prices go over $5/gallon.

[ananda]

2. agree

I also think that US jobs would be created.

And it wouldn't hurt USers to start using more environmentally friendly cars and mass transit.

Sue

[rodeodance]

5. you bet, a conserted program for alternative energy would but scientist,

thinks, workers, builders to work!!

[LiberalEsto]

8. To answer your question..

alternative fuel development might affect the jobs of the rich oil barons, not that they need to worry because of all the money they've got hidden away in the Caymans. Oh, and it would affect oil company profits.

[ashmanonar]

11. exactly.

which is why this maladministration won't ever do anything about alternative energy. when the oil barons own the whitehouse, there's a problem.

[Coastie for Truth]

10. Hell - It would jump this geezer from being a part time "consultant"

to being back in the saddle again.

[jmcgowanjm]

15. The transition will cost trillions/infrastructure will be stranded

Whenever you are starting something big, it is best not to be too realistic about it, to look no further than the next step

http://energybulletin.net/4514.html

[hatrack]

3. WTF is James Connaughton smoking?

"The target that was given to the United States was so unreasonable in our ability to meet it that the only way we could have met it was to shift energy intensive manufacturing to other countries," James Connaughton, head of the White House Council on Environment Quality, told the BBC.

Well gee-whiz, shitferbrains, what do you think we've been DOING here for the past 20 years?

Yes, God forbid that we participate in new technologies and new businesses. We CAN'T have that! :puke:

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. Using any excuse that comes to hand

Only this morning, an White House spokesperson was claiming on British radio that US manufacturing carbon dioxide emissions had decreased since 1990, to try to show what a responsible global citizen the USA is. And yet they also claim the only way to meet the standards would be to cut further industry.

[rodeodance]

6. cuts into the coal and oil industry buddies jobs!! so they create scare

tactics and it works!!

[NVMojo]

7. They want an excuse to tear up ANWR and they'll take any excuse

they can get at this point.

[cthrumatrix]

9. Anwar most optimistic views would satiate the US for 1 year

and the Oil companies are backing away from Alaska...the politicians want it.

[BeFree]

13. ANWR

Is the the prize plum for the eco-rapers. If they can fuck over ANWR, nothing is safe.

The wanton desires of the oil-teat sucking Americansumer empowers the eco-rapists onto their next victim. They will have their way.

I think it's time, cthru, et al, that we begin to call the spade a spade. I propose that we lay off peak-oil as the reason for high oil prices, and begin laying the blame on the war.

"Gas prices high? Gee, ever since Iraq was invaded prices have climbed. Looks like peace was a far better bargain"

[cthrumatrix]

14. the reason for the war is "oil"... this admin has no back up plan for

coming energy resource grab (China India etc..) it's all about ownership.

The Iraq war is a "trojan horse" for the US military to become the energy police for the middle east...we aren't going anywhere.

My wish is they took that $300Billion and invested it in renewable enrgy resources (Solar, wind etc...)

[BeFree]

19. But of course, we agree

And let's use that trojan horse. Let's turn it around.

"Our high gas prices can be blamed on the Iraqi war. The longer the war goes on, the higher the prices will go."

[phantom power]

12. our leaders are failing us. They're in denial.

My dad's been saying for years that we need to just vote every incumbent out of office. I used to think that was needlessly extreme, but every year I agree with him more. It's been years since anybody in Washington has even attempted to solve a real problem. They've lost touch.

[jmcgowanjm]

16. you can't vote them out because they count the votes n/t

[w4rma]

26. Don't fall into that trap. Research, instead. Look for the ones *trying*

to change things.

[jmcgowanjm]

17. There are no alternative fuels

Any alternative fuel, to be able to give any meaning
to our current economy would have to be found energy.

Like finding a cubic mile of alcohol, for example.
If we have to make a cubic mile of alcohol,
biomass will have to be diverted.

Inother words there is, even w/ the most
viable alternatives, a transition cost/time
variable which will entail $trillions
in sacrificed growth/destroyed capital.

And meanwhile the world's pop along w/
all other meaningful trendline are going in the
wrong direction.

In 50 years at least 2 billion will have to be removed
from the world's human pop.
This is Cheney's Plan-eliminate the competition.

BRIC's plan-stop the US plan.

[cthrumatrix]

18. the growth is a major concern,.,... solar energy must be looked at now!

[jmcgowanjm]

20. the good news: water aquifers can't be pumped w/o oil

"We definitely need to be conserving water,"

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:OaTYzJeSTosJ:www.ardemgaz.com/ShowStoryTemplate.asp%3FPath%3DArDemocrat/2005/03/02%26ID%3DAr00105%26Section%3DArkansas+arkansas+rice+farmers+restrict+water&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

"Water is not like oil
(water is just like oil, there is no substitute). There is no substitute. If we continue to
take it for granted, much of the earth is going to run short
of
water or food--or both.""

"The Arkansas rice farmers' situation is a microcosm of
a problem affecting much of the world. A new report from
the International Food Policy Research Institute, "World
Water and Food to 2025," addresses the global freshwater
crisis

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/12/opinion/12TUE2.html?ex=1111035600&en=7ed0f60c396de42e&ei=5070

Solar just does not have the BTU's to power
our infrastructure.

You can't mine, farm, construct with solar.
The economy will have to be totally transformed
by it.

[Coastie for Truth]

21. Wrong!

There's a lot of alternatives -- and with oil at $55/bbl, they are economically viable. (Biomass, solar, wind).

Did you see - Four power companies are looking at building Nuke plants. and Duke Power has already met with the NRC -- http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/15/science/15nucl.html?

[jmcgowanjm]

24. If they were economically viable this thread wouldn't be happening n/t

[w4rma]

27. This thread is happening because the folks in power are trying to make

them economically non-viable. There are ways of making them economically viable. Targeted tax-breaks. Incentives. Government funding. Etc.

[jmcgowanjm]

28. Targeted tax-breaks. Incentives. Government funding

Exactly. This is spending $/energy the government doesn't
have.

We've spent well over $5 trillion on nuclear
since 1955. $6 trillion counting Israel's.

How much did we spend on NASA.

And the military itself.

All this wealth was derived from ever increasing amounts
of energy. Now we're on the downside of the curve
and any kind of long term debt creation will be
impossible, because current debt is being
marked down.

We're $40 trillion in debt. And Bushco wants
to spend at least $2 trillion for SS>WallSt
programs.

It's done, over. Global war over resources
is here. The date of Peakoil will be marked
by the next major attack in the NeoCold War.

The energy decisions will then be made by default,
the way humans always do.

http://geostrategymap.com/N_KeepWatching.htm#moral

When you finally realize how pervasive it is in our everyday
lives, you will begin to understand exactly how much the
human race must change in order to do without
it.

http://energybulletin.net/4740.html

Cheers. Stay positive,

[Coastie for Truth]

22. NY Times Article -- Power Producers Seek Latest Models of Nuclear Reactors

Link http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1313587&mesg_id=1313587

[jmcgowanjm]

23. So if new orders materialize in the next five years

This is what I'm talkin' about.

In 5 years we'll have more in common w/
1936 than now.

Net energy is the key.
How can yu build nuclear when your cities
are suffering browouts.

Who's repairing the transmission lines,
building the railroads and locomotives.
Why bring up railroads?
Just one of the infrastructure special
interests who will be competing
for the transition $'s.

And BTW-Google nevada yucca mountain illegal

[The_Casual_Observer]

25. This is the standard reply to this concern, "The third world

deserves to grow too!, and they can't grow unless they are allowed to pollute the earth as much as we do!"