Interesting that Palin contradicted her own previously stated pro-cap-and-trade position. 

Throughout the 2008 campaign, she was all for it, never once calling it "cap-and-tax" as she did in the WaPo op-ed. 

Guess she's trying to be the chief cheerleader for the Party of No.

I agree with you Charlie.  As much as I disagree with most of Ms. Palin's rhetoric, I hate to see the media discussing her views and actions in unprofessional ways.  Good for you, Emlily, for taking the high road!

Well, miss lewis...I dont think we have to worry about her getting attached to any think tank as I would logicly expect that they would want any new members to actually be able to think...Unlike miss palin who only seems able to react...And usually not in a positive manner.

I wasnt aware that the tobacco companies were a part of the misinformation campagn...

I saw the e-mail of your next post "ROTFLMFAO" and thought you were referring to your post because it did end in "..."  Well now that I looked at the blog instead of the e-mail, here is one source with a couple of links.

http://www.goingsmokefree.org/links/resources_industrymisinformation.html

Be Helpful, Not Hurtful

Just to save some time with this debate.  The link below already had this same debate except both sides used thier facts and provided links.  In my opinion we did a very good job at debunking those that said "we are not responsible for Global Warming or Climate Change".

What ever side you choose to support, please follow all the links before using any as 'fact'.

We need to start saving eachothers time and energy by sharing our research and our 'facts' as much as possible. 

Be Helpful, Not Hurtful

http://globalwarming.change.org/blog/view/10_degrees_hotter_by_2100_odds_are_good_unless_we_act

PS Now we need to start collectively working together to restore the Planet & its Economy as a priority to all.  To see my plan. please follow my links above...:)

Thank you mr. hancock.

ROTFLMFAO...

If she reads at all?  She'd make a great president if she would get on a computer and sees how she needs to change?

Why should she change?  She gets lots of attention and opportunities for which other politicians would give their right arms.  Besides, there are plenty of people like you who think she's just great the way she is.

The only thing I "fear" is an American electorate who have contempt for empirical data and who vote based on what they want to believe. 

Given our easy access to the preponderance of evidence supporting climate change and our role in precipitating it, I can only assume you're not convinced it's a problem because you would rather believe it's not. 

Edward - I would suggest checking out scientific research and documentation from other countries and scientists not affiliated with our country - that way you will know for sure that it isn't some ploy by Obama to raise taxes. I assure you that the rest of the world has been touting global warming (caused by humans) as fact for a very very long time. Why don't you get on the computer and do your research. Knowledge is power - never listen to politicians they all have hidden agendas of some sort - go outside the realm of politics and into the realm of factual scientific data - not data by economists...

ps. I would just like to add that loathing is a kind word for how I feel about Palin. I really hope she doesn't win otherwise I will have to look for another country of residence (but than I guess why bother because the entire world will probably go up in flames by the end of this century if people like her continue to remain in power.)

Thanks, Kristen, for the points about looking at the facts; I couldn't have said it better.

Palin and many conservatives now relent that global warming is occurring.  They just don't admit that it caused by the activities of man.  But is it worth the risk to do nothing in the event that man is the cause?  Besides, what would be wrong with less pollution poured into our environment and becoming more energy independent.  Think of the benefits to our health, the environment, and our national security and long term prosperity.

Miss lewis...With all due respect, we already did have an electorate with that problem...For 8 years no less...Im just surprised were still around as a result of him.

Mr. McHugh, as far as I can tell we still do.  This is why it's so important to educate voters AND get them to the polls.  I think that's what helped in 2008 but we can't let up.  The vested interests have deep pockets and are effective catapulters of propaganda.

Mr. willis.

The global warming problem has been around long before obama became president.

In any case, I go by personal experiance on such matters and the weather in west virginia has gotten screwier over the last 10 to 15 years.

Indeed miss lewis...Indeed.

Edward said:

"sarah palin is another story ,i think alot of people are afraid of her .if she reads at all or gets on a computer and sees the things she needs to do to change she would make a great president."

You're darn right we're afraid of her!  If anybody who thinks like she does could get elected to our Presidency, I would for sure leave the country - I'm terrified of her and people who think like her.  She already has a computer and is on Twitter expounding her views - uninformed, misinformed and proud of it - that's Sara.  I've been a teacher and it's difficult to work with anyone who thinks they already have the answers and refuses to learn from not just her mistakes but from her peers. 

This woman will never be President because the majority of Americans are much smarter than Sarah is and much more astute than she will ever be.  When the student reaches the limits of their potential (and few of us have unlimited potential) is time to graduate to a real job and go to work.  We've seen her record and she's a short-term employee at best.

No thanks Sarah, glad to see you go.

we have to realize our student's potentials and push them to achieve to their level, yes but this woman has already reached her full potential which does not measure up

"... uninformed, misinformed and proud of it ... thinks they already have the answers and refuses to learn from [anyone's] mistakes ..."

Christine, you could have been describing George W. Bush, only without a rich and powerfully-connected family. 

I suppose the lack of such an asset is one thing to be grateful for where former governor Palin is concerned, and one reason why she probably has, as you said, gone as far as she could.  I hope.

Ok Christine Christian,

I totally understand what you are saying about wanting to leave the country if...its just so hard to write...she was President or Even Vice President.  But everytime that is said it just add fuel to why they want her.  If they can get U.S. to leave the country, is theirs.  So many people left when we had that President that was never elected either time.  I will not mention his name in fear he will appear, its kinda like calling out to the devil.  Its a Joke people:)  To be honest, I left for almost 2 years. 

And for bringing the kids to their full potential...

Videos 7 through 14 of 24 all deal with Education…

Video 7 of 24, The Education Portion starts 3 minutes into the video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdOG8SyWoXA

Be Helpful, Not Hurtful

Jennifer

"only without a rich and powerfully-connected family.  I suppose the lack of such an asset is one thing to be grateful for where former governor Palin is concerned"

I think her resigning early is a very clear indication that she has just been "adopted" by a "Rich Family"

We should be very afraid.  And at the same time she still continues to be her own worst enemy.

Indeed.

Mark, it isn't as if cap-and-trade isn't already happening.  For example, our C&T efforts on acid rain have yielded tremendous results, with acid levels in the northeast having dropped 50% in just over ten years.  I am not aware of any economic horrors resulting from that; in fact, there has been just the opposite.  Many other countries have already implemented their own successful strategies with little of the economic "crush" you describe to show for it.

Kyoto, which was in my estimation too timid, will probably be renegotiated in Copenhagen this year.  it will be interesting to watch the discussions around what is sure to be a more aggressive approach to ameliorating man-made climate change.

Environmental religion?  It's science -- you know, empirical data, as opposed to the desperate straw-grasping by the increasingly irrelevant Heritage Foundation whose "facts" you quote.

I will admit that I don’t know much about the success or shortcomings of C&T with respect to the acid rain issue.  However, it is quite possible that in that case, the science and economics leant themselves toward greater success.  I don’t know, but I just wanted to point out that C&T success in one area is not necessarily an indication that it will work in another area.  For example, we could try to cap and trade prostitution, but success with C&T in the acid rain realm, I think anyone can predict, is likely not a sure indicator of it’s success in the world of prostitution.  The incentives to act one way or another are probably far different in each case. I know it sounds like a ridiculous example, but it was just to make the point.

Yes there is some real science arguing for the global warming case, but to most liberals and progressives, it has been purely used as a tool to seize more power from the people.  Furthermore, there is also a ton of science arguing against the global warming case, and even if we were to agree that there is global warming, there is plenty of solid science arguing against the claim that humans are contributing to it in any material way. 

Finally, even if there is GW, and even if man is contributing to it in any significant degree, our efforts and money would be much better spent, first, working on mitigation efforts (like figure out where to move people if we think the waters will rise, or where the new crop land will be available, etc.), and second, spending money on problems we have today.  For example, all our projected efforts with respect to climate change (C&T, Kyoto, etc.) are projected to save fewer lives in the next hundred years than could be saved in one year if we spent that same years anti-GW money on mosquito nets for the poor in the malaria infested regions of the world.

What ever happened to that Ice Age the environmental alarmists assured us was coming back in the 70's?

I can't say that the numbers I used were from Heritage.  I have read so much information; it could be from any number of reputable researchers or think tanks, including Heritage.

You claim that The Heritage Foundation is becoming increasingly irrelevant.  I'd be curious to see your substantiation of that claim.  If it is just your impression, then own up to the subjectivity of your statement (thus admitting that you really don't know, but just HAD to blurt out something bad about them).  Heritage has lots of card-carrying smart people doing lots of solid research.  Again, I'd be glad to consider any equally sound refutation of their studies.  I don't automatically accept their stuff as Gospel, but it usually proves to be very convincing.  So if you have any point by point refutation concerning the results of their studies and analyses on global warming, I'd love to look at it.  Who knows - you might convince me.

Mark, there is not a ton of science that counters the theory of human-propelled global warming ("theory" in the scientific use of the word, "the very best explanation we can come up with for everything we have observed").  

It's exactly the other way around.  There is a ton of scientific research that supports the reality of human-propelled global warming, and less all the time that contradicts it.  

Entities like Heritage, which have ideological biases in favor of promoting the fossil energy economy, purposely gin up the perception that there's still significant scientific debate on this issue, when frankly there is not.  Heritage essentially creates closed arguments that prove its ideological points, carefully omitting contradictory data and the prevailing views of qualified researchers.  So yes, it sounds convincing, because it's PR, not honest inquiry.

In all fairness, any advocacy organization can fall into the same trap.

That's why I typically link to research that is being published in scientific journals or government agencies, precisely to avoid such perceived biases. 

I don't do a ton of debunking on this blog, but there are other sites that have a lot of good info, like Grist.org (where, full disclosure, I contribute as a freelancer) and DeSmogBlog.com.

Emily,

Thank you for the response.  And I hope you (and anyone else) were not offended by any of my posts.  I know I got a little "cute" with a couple of them.

 Regarding Heritage, I've seen attempts to debunk them, but none that were convincing.  Maybe I just haven't seen the ones that you have yet.  Plus, I only do this sort of stuff in my limited spare time.

As said, Heritage is not my only source for such things.  I've read a number of sources over the years, seen and heard lots of interviews on all sides of this argument.  There may be global warming (assuming we can agree how to define that, across what time period, factoring in the right evidence, etc.).  I might even be able to be convinced that it is significantly affected by human behavior (I'm not yet, but I'm open to the possibility).  Even if I conceded that both of those are true, I have seen no convincing evidence, even using the GW adherents' own numbers, that anything proposed or enacted yet would be worth the costs.  At best, over the next hundred years, we MIGHT save a very small number of lives from the effects of GW for trillions upon trillions of dollars spent on "prevention".  That kind of money would be better spent on AIDS, Malaria, 50 other diseases, clean water, hospitals, education, etc., and save more in one year than all the GW prevention efforts would save over the next hundred.

As far as the Heritage Foundation is concerned, keep in mind that it isn't actually a think tank -- it's more like a propaganda mill for the vested interests.

LBJ once remarked that every time a man described himself as a country lawyer, LBJ would put his hand on his wallet.  I have a similar automatic skepticism of the HF's "research."

 Initially funded by Joseph Coors and Richard Mellon Scaife, the HF maintains strong ties with the London Institute of Economic Affairs and the Mont Pelerin Society. Major HF contributors include Boeing, Lockheed Martin, AIG, Philip Morris, Johnson & Johnson, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation, Pfizer, PhRMA, Chevron,Texaco, Exxon Mobil, Microsoft, Amway, and United Parcel Service.

HF also receivea large donations from overseas, raking in at least several hundred thousand dollars from Taiwan and South Korea annually.  They received $2.2 million from the Federation of Korean Industries in the early 1980s. Initially it was believed this donation came from the Korean Central Intelligence Agency (which would make the HF a foreign agent of Korea), but the Federation later stated that the donation was only at the encouragement of the KCIA.

From http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heritage_Foundation

If I call the HF increasingly irrelevant, it's because their policies have been generally discredited in the wake of nearly thirty years of foreign policy disasters that have served mainly to diminish our standing in the world and IMO make us less safe.  Thanks to the recommendations of HF members both within and without the Reagan, Bush, and Bush II administrations, we have a long row to hoe in the eyes of those oppressed by the oppressors we supported in Latin America, Asia, and the Arab world.

However, the HF will continue to spew their propaganda as long as they have those deep pockets and as long as the traditional media believes they are an actual "think tank."

Mark, I'm with you!

Secretary of Energy Chu in fact supports expansion of nuclear energy in the US, to help curb carbon emissions.  DoE has just issued $18.5 B in loan guarantees for nuclear plants.

I'd feel a whole lot better about that if we had some real plans for (a) disposing and securing the waste and (b) sealing off and securing the plant sites when they are at the end of their useful life and have become extremely toxic.

I understand many countries simply store the waste on-site, which wouldn't be a bad thing if they also have a successful strategy for the site's end-of-life itself.

Otherwise, this CO2 reduction effort might have the unintended consequence of creating more material for dirty bombs.  What a trade-off, huh?

Jennifer, 
Our nuclear "waste" is actually not waste at all.  Because of unfounded environmental fears and the "China Syndrome" type hysteria in the early decades of nuclear power, we are not permitted to reprocess our fuel.  What we do is analogous to putting a log on a fire, burning off the bark, then burying the completely unburnt log never to be used again. We use about 3% of the usable energy in the uranium.  France repeatedly reprocesses the fuel to use the maximum available energy in it. Thus, the incredibly small amount of waste they generate.  Other nuke energy countries operate very similarly.  We are pretty much the only idiots who won't use the available energy for purely irrational reasons.
 
It is impossible to use nuclear power plant uranium to make a nuclear weapon.  As far as a dirty bomb, that would be extremely difficult.  You can handle uranium with your bare hands as I understand it and get very little exposure; something along the lines of an X-Ray's worth of radiation (maybe a couple x-rays, I have to refresh my memory, but the point is it is really low).  Plutonium is another story.  Very toxic and dirty bomb potential.  However, i don't think anyone is proposing plutonium run reactors.  I think the only ones we have are run by DOE and not commercial, so they are well protected. 
 
Melt downs:  the residents of Three Mile Island got less exposure from that than you would get from eating a banana.  Chernobyl?  A very poorly designed (by a wonderful socialist utopia, I might add) and extremely poorly run reactor, which no one would propose adopting anywhere.  However, even given the hysteria at the time, only a handful of deaths (mostly the emergency workers who went in the hot zone) and only a tiny, tiny number of cancer cases attributable to it, compared to what everyone feared. 
 
Coal produces far more radiation than nuclear power.  There are any number of things around us that emit more radiation than your neighborhood nuclear power plant.
 
We have gobs of uranium available here and in friendly nations, which will last at least a couple hundred years. We have even more thorium available which could as easily be used in these plants, also easily available from friendly nations.  Hundreds of years more worth of fuel! 
 
Why aren't we building a hundred new plants?

You are incorrect when you state "we are not permitted to reprocess our fuel."  The ban imposed by President Ford in 1976 was lifted by President Reagan in 1981. 

It is not impossible to use the unprocessed waste from nuclear power plants to make a dirty bomb.  If it was, there would not be the grave concern about securing this waste expressed by so many experts on the subject.

France is not the nuclear nirvana you portray.  Sure, most French nuclear power plants reprocess waste and squeeze as much energy from it as possible.

But four of their plants release heated water into the ocean to the detriment of every living sea creature nearby.

Nuclear advocates misrepresent the actual amount of energy French plants provide.  True, they provide nearly 80% of France's generated electricity, but in terms of final energy, the amount actually used by consumers, it's closer to 25%, while over 70% of France's final energy is supplied by the familiar trinity of oil, gas, and coal, 50% of which is oil alone.

A major concern and one fraught with uncertainty is the cost of decommisioning current plants and waste-management.  Some estimates of waste run as high as 50 million tons, a combination of post-fission waste and the result of nearly fifty years of uranium mining.  The official cost estimates for final disposal of long-lived high-level and intermediate-level fission wastes are at least $21 billion and as high as $90 billion.

This is just the waste problem.  French citizens are rightly concerned about a host of safety issues, such as the rise in safety-related incidents in the aging French nuclear fleet (from 7.1 per reactor per year in 2000 to 10.8 in 2007) and construction errors in the building of new plants which last year caused an unprecedented stop-work order.  Even with these and other problems, the construction companies forge ahead marketing their services around the world while they misrepresent and obfuscate the real issues their products have created.

No wonder a European Commission study found that some two-thirds of French citizens favor a decrease in the proportion of nuclear power in their energy-production formula.

Nuclear energy may very well be of use, particularly if a safe fusion reactor can be developed.  What's needed is a clear-eyed and fact-based examination of the issues and a cessation of lying on the part of those who stand to make a profit.

"You are incorrect when you state "we are not permitted to reprocess our fuel."  The ban imposed by President Ford in 1976 was lifted by President Reagan in 1981. "

Yes, but no funding was provided to resume there reprocessing.

"You are incorrect when you state "we are not permitted to reprocess our fuel."  The ban imposed by President Ford in 1976 was lifted by President Reagan in 1981."

- Yes, but no funding was provided to resume the reprocessing.  Political progress toward resuming reprocessing only recently occurred.  Of course, the Obama Energy Department reversed the resumption of much of the reprocessing. 

‘It is not impossible to use the unprocessed waste from nuclear power plants to make a dirty bomb.  If it was, there would not be the grave concern about securing this waste expressed by so many experts on the subject.'

- I only said the uranium was unable to be used in a dirty bomb. I did not mean the waste. However, even at that, its usefulness as a terror weapon is pretty low. What is a terrorist going to do? "HA! You vile American Satans. I have dumped a barrel of nuclear power plant waste in your river. In 20 years you shall experience the calamity of 20 extra cases of cancer. VICTORY IS MINE! MUUHHHHAHAHAHAH!" Not very dramatic, for a terrorist, is it? That is not really their M.O. It would be far easier, and far more terror-inducing, for them to drive a bomb laden truck into a kindergarten. Why would they waste their time with nuclear waste?

"France is not the nuclear nirvana you portray.  Sure, most French nuclear power plants reprocess waste and squeeze as much energy from it as possible.  But four of their plants release heated water into the ocean to the detriment of every living sea creature nearby."

- Four out of how many? Plants do release warm water, but there are lots of fish in the sea. Furthermore, I suspect there are ways to prevent much of that release, at least by cooling the water more before it is discharged. By the way, some creatures like warm water.

"Nuclear advocates misrepresent the actual amount of energy French plants provide.  True, they provide nearly 80% of France's generated electricity, but in terms of final energy, the amount actually used by consumers, it's closer to 25%, while over 70% of France's final energy is supplied by the familiar trinity of oil, gas, and coal, 50% of which is oil alone."

- I'm not sure where your statistics for France's final energy comes from, but it is not in agreement with virtually everything I've ever read and heard on the subject. How is it that nuclear can produce 75-80 percent of the electricity generated, but only 25 percent consumed? Is their distribution grid so poor that two thirds of the electricity generated by nuclear is lost in transmission or otherwise wasted, so that the demand must be supplied by traditionally powered plants closer to the users? Point me to an explanation of this so that I can understand what you are claiming.

"A major concern and one fraught with uncertainty is the cost of decommissioning current plants and waste-management.  Some estimates of waste run as high as 50 million tons, a combination of post-fission waste and the result of nearly fifty years of uranium mining.  The official cost estimates for final disposal of long-lived high-level and intermediate-level fission wastes are at least $21 billion and as high as $90 billion." 

- Ummm, reprocess the waste. Again, France, where "...The volume of the ultimate high-level waste was indeed very small: the contribution of a family of four using electricity for 20 years is a glass cylinder the size of a cigarette lighter." [Why the French like Nuclear Energy, Frontline, -PBS.ORG - (couldn't find the date)].

"This is just the waste problem.  French citizens are rightly concerned about a host of safety issues, such as the rise in safety-related incidents in the aging French nuclear fleet (from 7.1 per reactor per year in 2000 to 10.8 in 2007) and construction errors in the building of new plants which last year caused an unprecedented stop-work order."

- Then yes, let's be careful. I noticed you didn't cite any deaths. One of these, if it is the incident I'm thinking about, exposed about 100 workers to radiation levels 1/40th of the permitted level. So apparently still safe. Even if all 100 die in 30 years from cancer attributable to the event (which no one could actually prove, but let's pretend), that would equal about 2 days worth of fatalities from the burning of coal for electricity.

"Even with these and other problems, the construction companies forge ahead marketing their services around the world while they misrepresent and obfuscate the real issues their products have created."

- If it caused a stop work order, isn't that a good thing? Yes, companies do market themselves. They market so that people will want to buy their product or service. If they don't market, they can't sell stuff very successfully. If they can't sell stuff, they make no money. If they make no money, investors loose money, employees loose jobs, ...all bad things. I don't know what misrepresentations or obfuscations you are talking about in this case, because I don't know the facts, but one should not paint all companies with the same broad brush. By the way, change.org does marketing, too.

"No wonder a European Commission study found that some two-thirds of French citizens favor a decrease in the proportion of nuclear power in their energy-production formula."

- This would be surprising if true. It is counter to everything I've ever read on the subject, so it would have to be a convincing source. Any web search pulls up numerous articles and sources which seem to corroborate what I've said.

"Nuclear energy may very well be of use, particularly if a safe fusion reactor can be developed.  What's needed is a clear-eyed and fact-based examination of the issues and a cessation of lying on the part of those who stand to make a profit."

- You will find, if you look, plenty of "clear-eyed and fact-based examination of the issues" that prove the safety and effectiveness of nuclear power. For one source from among very many, try "Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy" by Gwyneth Cravens.

Mark, your knee-jerk responses speak for themselves, but I can't help a few remarks:

"there are lots of fish in the sea. ... By the way, some creatures like warm water."

Except when they don't.  And for fish, it's not a matter of "like" -- it's more like "tolerate" and in some cases  "can't live in" warm water.

But that's okay.  There's lots of fish.  Who cares?

"Ummm, reprocess the waste."

You must know the jury is still out about mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel.  Some think it causes even higher risks than just leaving the waste alone.

Now, I agree I "didn't cite any deaths," but is that your measure?  Should the high incidence of leukemia near the nuclear waste reprocessing plant at La Hague be taken into account only if there is a high mortality rate?  http://jech.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/55/7/469?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=la+hague&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT

BTW have you read about how the heat wave in Europe has forced France to temporarily shut down a third of their nuclear reactors? http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/utilities/article6626811.eceHow

How about the threats to ground water by tritium leaks in the US?http://www.waterconserve.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=59632

How bad do things have to get before you acknowledge that the energy derived from nuclear power might not be worth the energy, health risks, safety measures, and remediation & mitigation efforts it requires?

Jenifer,

Fishies: I was being a little flippant. It was late.  But still, they are just fish.  In the scheme of things, I believe this is not a huge negative impact, though reasonable efforts to mitigate this are appropriate.

MOX:  The threat of not reprocessing plutonium, though, is very high, whereas reprocessing it produces fuel that, when spent, is less dangerous than the original plutonium. 

France - warm weather shut downs: Perhaps coastal plants are a wiser choice then.  Or perhaps it is good that they have backup generation capacity (conventional power stations) available to them to boost the base load in such times.

Tritium leaks:  Stop/prevent leaks.

La Hague - leukemia: Stop the radiation leaks. Leukemia is bad. Dead is worse.  Over 20,000+ dead from coal fired plants each year.  Which is worse?  How many cows, horses, eagles, rabbits, etc. die from coal pollution in the air (remember the fish?).

When are you going to acknowledge that it might, indeed, be worth the costs/risks?  When will advocates of wind, solar, wave power, and pixie-dust acknowledge that they are nowhere near a breakthrough that would give us the energy we need for the country.  None of these "renewables" will ever provide enough power to create the reliable base load we need to meet our demand. They will be good supplements (perhaps), but without some big breakthroughs (which I'd love to see, by the way - who wouldn't want clean, cheap power), we need big power plants run by hydro, oil, coal, gas, nuclear, etc. making really big turbines go round-and-round really fast. 

I admit that nuclear is not a panacea.  It has serious risks that need to be mitigated. Any country needs a combination of sources that complement each other, cover each other when one has to shut down, etc.

Note: how is it that the Navy, in ships designed for rough seas, and high operational demand, can run about 100 nuclear power plants (at its peak I think, probably fewer now) almost incident free (except a few early ones)?  Good design, exacting standards, superb training, and high discipline. That model can be repeated.

Jenifer,

I'm happy to support some reasonable continuing R&D into promising renewables.  Maybe that R&D will provide the breakthroughs we need.  But until then (and it will be a long time - I'm betting it will be decades), we are stuck with power generated by less than ideal sources.  We have to accept that fact and deal with the risks sensibly. Demand for energy is not going to go down. 

"None of these "renewables" will ever provide enough power to create the reliable base load we need to meet our demand. They will be good supplements (perhaps), but without some big breakthroughs (which I'd love to see, by the way - who wouldn't want clean, cheap power), we need big power plants run by hydro, oil, coal, gas, nuclear, etc. making really big turbines go round-and-round really fast ...  We have to accept [power generated by less than ideal sources] and deal with the risks sensibly."

So, you're looking for The Magic Bullet.  This, in my mind, is the biggest single obstacle to solving our energy problems: looking for one thing when it is clear (to me, anyway) that a number of things are required.

I work for a power company.  About ten years ago the state utilities commission, in the name of "competition," ordered my company to sell off its power-generation capabilities and become simply a conduit for power, charging customers the cost of transporting and delivering the power while acting as a collection agent for the power suppliers.  While T&D costs have been relatively stable and have even decreased at times, the cost of power has not. 

In the intervening years, my company was bought by another company which in turn was acquired by a European power company.  This company is becoming a world leader in wind and water power, and by "water" I mean all forms: rivers, tidal, and ocean waves.  Tidal and wave hold a great deal of promise, as tides and waves occur regularly, predictably, independent of the weather, and practically waste- and emission-free.  My company is petitioning the state to allow us back into the energy generation business, and there is a lot of support for that among the citizens of my state.

In addition to aggressive development of these natural resources in an environmentally responsible manner, "smart grid" R&D is necessary to help harness and coordinate all such energy sources in North America in an intelligently manageable way.

IMHO this describes the closest thing to a magic bullet as we can reasonably expect in our lifetime.  It will benefit both our energy needs and the cause of human-induced climate change while building new sectors of the economy and providing much-needed jobs.  Unfortunately the sense of urgency on the part of many Americans has once more dipped in tandem with the cost of a barrel of oil, which is so clearly NOT in our best long-term interest.  We seem determined to allow the rest of the world (hello, China) to usurp our role in exercising what we used to call Yankee ingenuity.

Collectively we seem to have the attention span of a three-year-old.  Perhaps this is why Alexis de Tocqueville observed, "An American will build a house in which to pass his old age and sell it before the roof is on; he will plant a garden and rent it just as the trees are coming into bearing ... he will take up a profession and leave it, settle in one place and soon go off elsewhere."  (Thanks to Garrison Keillor's "Writer's Almanac" of this morning for the reminder!)

There is also entirely too much influence by the vested interests, by those for whom the status quo will provide more income in the short-run and to whom R&D is only good if they can figure out a way to control it.

To quote Upton Sinclair, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

You'll notice that plants and animals were doing just fine prior to the industrial revolution, I hope!  Am sure you will still be sitting pretty in lettuce and lambies if/when CO2 pollution is capped and lowered.

And I think we are sitting pretty in vegitation now, aren't we?

Fact-based observations are not the same as ad hominem attacks.  People have valid reasons for using words like "shallow, self-serving, vapid, clueless" to describe Sarah Palin and can, as I did, provide clear-cut fact-based examples.  How many do you require?  Would you accept those provided by the many Republicans who see her as I do?

If you cannot provide empirical evidence supporting the application of those same words to President Obama, then no, you would not "be percieved [sic] to be an honorable participant" in such a discussion.

Mark's got a point.

Dismissing her as vapid or unintelligent, possessed of a lobotomy, or clueless, is underestimating her.  

Based on admittedly distant observation, I'd call her self-serving, ambitious, materialistic, opportunistic, and possessed of highly situational ethics.  

Reportedly, per Vanity Fair's recent article, she's a textbook narcissist.  

She might be bright; it's hard to tell from the tv coverage. But she sure comes off as incurious.

In short: Jon Stewart nailed it last year when he tagged Sarah Palin a grifter.

As the person who made the above comments (vapid, shallow, self-serving and clueless) about Sarah Palin, I would like to state that I reached these conclusions after observing her actions during the 2008 election.

I was embarassed for the GOP by her obvious lack of knowledge and skills.  From the very beginning, she struck me as someone who was too dumb to realize how much she didn't know (as in clueless).  As the campaign wore on, this became glaringly apparent based on her statements, and her attempts to upstage John McCain (self-serving).

Webster defines "vapid" as tiresome, dull, and tedious.  I stand by my assessment of Sarah Palin in that regard. 

As for shallow, I can't imagine a person of depth getting joy out of shooting live animals from the air.  I believe shallow and clueless often go hand in hand.

Mark, I see you called her smart.  Some on here have called her pretty.  Maybe these do or do not apply to her, but they are opinions, as are mine.  Applying an adjective to her does not mean I am not an honorable participant.  Frankly, I think I'm being generous.

I have heard many adjectives used to describe our president.  I agree with some and disagree with others, but I'm willing to hear everyone's opinion.

Mark, I can't believe that you're falling for so much disinformation about President Obama's politics and policies.  

Obama is doggedly centrist, center-conservative when it comes to military policy in particular.  His not-so-radical defense policies so far include increasing the US engagement in Afghanistan, keeping the Bagram Prison open, and failing thus far to rescind "don't ask, don't tell."

On the enviro and energy fronts, so far Obama's record features upholding Bush era enviro rules on mountaintop mining, and limiting the scope of the endangered listing of the polar bear.  (I suspect he's looking for systemic solutions rather than issuing top-down edicts, but the record's the record thus far.)

Health care reform may end up being a failure, but that's not going to be because the government eliminated private health insurance.  The extremely even-handed watchdog group Politifact gives that one a rating of "Liar liar pants on fire."

And another non-partisan analysis group, the Tax Policy Center, has found that 90% of families will get a tax cut under President Obama's 2010 budget (whew!); and that only around 600,000 taxpayers -- 0.4% -- will see a tax increase.

If you define Obama as a radical, then the term completely loses meaning in American English.  

==begin earnest rant==

Mark, this should amaze me less than it does, I suppose (the mark of an eternal optimist?), but:  how much more time does this "let the market work" dogma need to be allowed to run free, before we can finally acknowledge that it's a failure? I don't know how you or anyone can continue to argue for it in good faith.  

It's been tried.  It's failing; it's failed.  The results are all around us.  FEMA was gutted under the Bush administration and look what happened to the Gulf Coast during and after Katrina.

 Regulations on banks have weakened steadily and significantly since the Reagan administration, and these entities brought down the entire global economy last year.

As for health care, let me use myself as an example, because the only way I'm exceptional is that I've managed to keep myself insured as a freelancer. (I've been a freelancer for most of the past 15 years.)

Since the failure of health care reform under the Clinton administration, my health plans have all become some form of managed care: HMO or PPO networks that restrict my choice of doctors, unless I want to pay out of pocket on top of my premiums.  

Since 2000, my health insurance premium has more than quadrupled. (For most of the past 15 years, I've been a freelancer, paying for my own health insurance.) All the deductibles are higher (some have more than doubled).  Allowed hospitalizations have been reduced, and the deductibles are thousands of dollars higher.  

I pay an additional premium for dental care -- almost $500 a year.  It caps out at $1000 a year, so optimally I save around $500 a year. That's if the plan covers what my dentist deems I need, which it often does not.  The company takes the decision out of his hands, leaving me to pay out of pocket, again on top of the premium.  

My Rx medication plan frequently changes its list of accepted medications, and if something I need is not on it, I pay retail prices, despite having health insurance.  Again, the insurance company has taken the decision out of the doctor's hands, all without any government intervention. 

And here's the kicker: I'm one of the lucky ones, because I am able to get health insurance at a group rate via a professional organization.  Lots of people don't do work that qualifies them for professional organizations; or, they live someplace where even those insurance plans are not available.

Your arguments are not based on the facts on the table.  They're based on your political philosophy, right down to the memes about Obama's supposed power grab.

Did you hear that Vice President Cheney wanted to send the US military into Buffalo to arrest suspected terrorists?  (Alert, alert, posse comitatus wingnuts!)

That the Bush administration developed legal groundwork, after 9/11, for a plan to suspend First Amendment rights and ignore the will of Congress?

That's attempting to seize more political power in the hands of the federal government than ANY other president has.  That's less local control, less individual control, less individual liberty, and more radical steps toward centralized, semi-authoritarian government than ANY other administration in the nation's history.

On top of being eternally optimistic that our society can face facts about what's worked and what's failed in our economy and our health care, I am hopeful that someday people will figure out that most of the politicians and media demagogues who promote these ideas are using you -- they have little but contempt for you as individuals and citizens, and see you as means to power, and to personal wealth.  

You need to demand better of them.

==end earnest rant==

"Mark, this should amaze me less than it does, I suppose (the mark of an eternal optimist?), but:  how much more time does this "let the market work" dogma need to be allowed to run free, before we can finally acknowledge that it's a failure? I don't know how you or anyone can continue to argue for it in good faith.  It's been tried.  It's failing; it's failed."

 It most certainly HAS NOT been tried (at least, not in a generation or more), and therefore, has not failed.  Medical care and Medical insurance markets have been completely distorted due to inappropriate government intervention. 

"The results are all around us.  FEMA was gutted under the Bush administration and look what happened to the Gulf Coast during and after Katrina.  Regulations on banks have weakened steadily and significantly since the Reagan administration, and these entities brought down the entire global economy last year."

I'm not sure how you think the Katrina-FEMA thing was an example of free market failure.  The financial mess was the direct result of government meddling in markets for political reasons.  This meddling naturally and quite predictably cause a number of dominos to start falling leading to a huge crisis. 

"Your arguments are not based on the facts on the table."

Neither are yours!  We have not had a free market in the realm of medicine and medical insurance for at least 45 years.  The free market seems to work every other commodity that is not regulated.  Why should health care and medical insurance be different?  That said, there are medical markets which are subject to no or very little market distorting government regulation.  This includes the markets for purely elective medical procedures (those that are not covered by medical insurance), such as cosmetic surgery (stable prices despite a 6X increase in demand since early 1990s), $10 prescription drugs at Wal-Mart for a 90-day supply of 300 different generic prescriptions, the No Insurance Club, medical savings accounts, IVF and other fertility treatments, laser eye surgery, optometry, most dental care, the (mostly) free market has worked very well, and continually driven the prices down.  Also, how about aspirin, cold medicine, tooth paste, knee braces, crutches, ..... all examples of free market for medical care.  When I had to pick a doctor for my daughters' braces (orthodontia is not covered by my, nor, I believe, almost anyone's insurance), I had many choices of doctors, much information about who was better than who, who charged what for each procedure or service, and so forth. 

"...That's less local control, less individual control, less individual liberty, and more radical steps toward centralized, semi-authoritarian government than ANY other administration in the nation's history."

Without investigating what you allege, I never said Bush was better in that regard.  The fact is we have had Progressive and statists of a lesser or greater degree as our presidents since Teddy Roosevelt.  As a result, we are all less free and worse off for it.

"I am hopeful that someday people will figure out that the politicians and media demagogues who promote these ideas are using you -- they have little but contempt for you as individuals and citizens, and see you as means to power, and to personal wealth."

With the exception of your reference to politicians using ME, specifically, I ABSOLUTELY AGREE that they have contempt for all of us normal folk and see us all as a means to power.  This is why we should give them almost no power and almost no money. THEN we will be as free as practicable as the Founders intended.

I seem to be a voice shouting in the wilderness, here, don't I?

That's okay -- at least you noticed.  Most never do!

I was waiting for you to quote her.

Leave it to an Objectivist to be able to hold the opinion that:

"we should give government very, very little power, and almost no money"

and at the same time complain that:

"no [government] funding was provided to resume the reprocessing [of nuclear fuel]."

(See: dissonance, cognitive.)

Jenifer,

There is no evidence in your post that you know what an Objectivist is.  Of course, because all your other posts demonstrate to me that you are pretty darn bright, I suspect you do know what objectivists espouse.  However, your post contradicts that, because obviously any objectivist would NOT advocate government subsidies or favors of any kind.

 First, I am not an Objectivist.

Second, I do mostly agree with the Objectivist positions on economics (pure laissez faire capitalism) and individual liberty (full respect for individual rights).

Third, I am a realist.  Given the state of nuclear energy industry at the time, the fact that reprocessing had been prohibited, the fact that the commercial sector had been prohibited for some time so had not tried to develop reprocessing processes and technology (it was against the law), the fact that the government wanted to develop an industrial capability to reprocess fuel and decommissioned warheads, it is natural that the Government would have to provide a subsidy, or directly fund research itself into reprocessing technologies and methods, or reprocess fuel at Government sites. 

Yes, my point was that Objectivists do suffer from a peculiar form of cognitive dissonance.  I read your Ayn Rand quotation, considered the contradictions between your two statements, and inferred (perhaps incorrectly) that you were a disciple.

But I take you at your word that you are not.  Perish forbid we should devolve into a tedious off-topic discussion of AR, her philosophy, and her followers!

However, one thing: sure, government intervention does tend to benefit one group over another.  Interesting how intervention that allows rapacious greed to run unchecked over the less fortunate is seen as "good" by so many Randian economists, while intervention that  prevents monopolies and insists everyone pay theri fair share of the common burden (e.g. infrastructure, defense, etc.) is seen as "bad."  This is the essential selfishness of Randians I deplore.  Jesus had a word for it: hypocrisy.

Jenifer,

"However, one thing: sure, government intervention does tend to benefit one group over another." 

While it is perhaps unavoidable to some degree, this state is unjust and must, therefore, be kept to the barest minimum. 

"Interesting how intervention that allows rapacious greed to run unchecked over the less fortunate is seen as "good" by so many Randian economists, while intervention that  prevents monopolies and insists everyone pay their fair share of the common burden (e.g. infrastructure, defense, etc.) is seen as "bad.""

I'm having trouble thinking of an "intervention" that allows rapacious greed, etc. 

"This is the essential selfishness of Randians I deplore."

But selfishness (an evaluation I'm not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with here) is not an ill that Government is morally empowered to cure.  If that selfishness begins to contravene the fundamental natural rights of others, then it is the place of government to respond to protect the rights of others and no more. 

Mark, you're "having trouble thinking of an "intervention" that allows rapacious greed, etc.?"

Who benefits from government subsidies of factory farming at the expense of the family farms, or from the deregulation of banking and finance, or from non-compete government contracts awarded to companies such as KBR and Blackwater, both of whom are responsible for the deaths of either servicemen or Iraqi civilians or both, or the insistance on a health care system run on a for-profit basis by faceless benefit-denying bureaucrats in deep-pocketed insurance companies? 

Simple: the rapaciously greedy.   The long-term damage these policies have done to our society and our economy overshadows any short-term narrowly-defined benefits for which one might try to make an argument.

"If that selfishness begins to contravene the fundamental natural rights of others, then it is the place of government to respond to protect the rights of others and no more."

Thank you for proving my point. 

Jenifer,

            My question really was just to gain clarity on what you might consider “intervention”.  I guess a subsidy would be considered intervention.  It is a deliberate act, as opposed to not regulating, or generally sitting on the sidelines.

            That said, I guess the next task is to define the term “rapacious greed”, which, I suppose, could be someone’s PhD dissertation.

            But as to your examples in particular:

Subsidies: I’d be hard pressed to think of an industry that should be subsidized; not oil, not coal, not ethanol, not solar, not wind, not cattle ranchers, not smelt, not bread, not insurance companies, not…. I suppose there MIGHT be one or two things that OCCASIONALLY warrant a boost, but they would be rare and brief, if ever.Deregulation of banking/finance: I believe that regulation in general should be kept to a minimum and have the purposes of basic safety and of maximized transparency so market actors have access to the information necessary to make wise choices. To the extent that is not currently the case, it needs to be fixed.Non-compete government contracts: Well, there’s another entire dissertation one could write to refute most of such allegations. However, I will briefly say that MOST (the vast majority, I dare say) of what the public hears about ‘no-bid’ contracts to “greedy” defense contractors is pure, absolute malarkey. Having worked in Government contracting from both sides of the negotiating table for many years, I can tell you that it is rare that there is ever an improper award of the nature you hear about. Of course, I guess it’s like all the air planes that land successfully that we never hear about…. Under specific conditions pretty clearly defined in both law and regulations, so-called ‘no-bid’ contracts are unquestionably the best way to fill many requirements. Also, what are often referred to by the media as ‘no-bid’ contracts, simply are not. They are often simply task orders or delivery orders awarded under an indefinite delivery indefinite quantity type contract which was previously awarded under full and open competition. Additionally, in wartime or other contingency, situations arise where there is a clear urgent and compelling need such that time does not permit the full measure of competition and complete analysis. This is perfectly legal, and right. I will not pretend that there are no abuses, of course. But I believe that they are rare and often not nearly as egregious as the public is led to believe. Furthermore, I can tell you that without a doubt, the Government is VERY good at preventing any contractor from realizing profits at the “rapacious” level. They are very good, in fact, at denying even what many would call reasonable profits.“…such as KBR and Blackwater, both of whom are responsible for the deaths of either servicemen or Iraqi civilians or both…” Well, besides the one incident where a Blackwater security detail arguably did their job too aggressively, causing civilian deaths, I’m not sure I can respond adequately without facts. I can’t say that I’ve heard of anything such as, or on the level of the Blackwater incident. Of course, that incident had NO connection to the profit motive you are decrying here, so I’m not sure what you mean. They did not get paid more for killing civilians than for not. I assume they would have gotten the same payment for having an incident-free day.“…or the insistance on a health care system run on a for-profit basis …” I would not want a system NOT motivated by profit. That would make for a very poor level of care. Magnanimity only gets you so far. I’ve been in a system that had no profit motive, and while there were SOME good health care professionals, the majority of the system employees were not incited to provide me good service or value for my dollar. Profits reward efficiency and innovation. Insurance – and any - companies only make profits if they produce something people want to buy. If I get poor, expensive service from my insurance company, I can change (in a market where the government doesn’t limit my choices, like we have now, and would definitely have under “Obama-care”). If the company continues to perform poorly for its customers, it will lose those customers, especially in a free market open to countless other providers. The lack of a profit motive in a government run system would almost assuredly lead that program to be less efficient than private insurance, not more. Also, note that according to the Congressional Budget Office, profits account for less than 3 percent of private health insurance premiums. Rapacious?“…by faceless benefit-denying bureaucrats in deep-pocketed insurance companies?” To the extent they deny benefits, it is because it is the only way to control costs. Do you really think there will be no ‘faceless benefit-denying bureaucrats’ in the government run system? I think it would be far worse in this regard under a government system. At least now, if my insurance unjustly refuses to pay for a procedure, I have administrative and legal recourse I can pursue. Do you think the government will let us sue it?“Thank you for proving my point.” I certainly was not intending to prove your point, nor do I believe that I did. My point is that the government should protect my basic natural rights to life, liberty, property, etc. If I exercise my liberty so broadly that it infringes on another person’s life, liberty, or property, then yes, I should be restrained, but only to the extent necessary to bring my actions to a state where they no longer violate another’s rights. For example, I may wish to create wealth for myself and my family through the fruits of my labor, intelligence, and motivation. However, if I wish to increase my wealth by stealing your television, I have obviously violated your fundamental property rights and I should be restrained in some way, possibly including an appropriate punishment. However, if I merely sell a product and it makes me very wealthy (assuming I did not lie or cheat, no monopoly, no government favors, etc.), then I have done nothing wrong. I have traded value for value. With each transaction, I and my customers have gained on a mutually beneficial basis. I have not violated anyone’s rights. As long as the playing field is level, I should be able to participate in the market freely, on the same terms as anyone else. I have earned that wealth and any government taking of it for purposes that are not rightly the government’s to undertake, is unjust. So I guess we could ask what is a proper government function, and that is probably the crux of the issue, and deserves its own blog/thread. Suffice it to say that I believe the government should be very limited, and you apparently believe it should quite unlimited in its power and involvement in our lives.

UGGHH!  The site did not paste my post in the way I typed it.  Sorry for the long run-on paragraph.

Elsewhere on this blog, you've said you're a geologist.  Would you care to let us know where and when you earned your degrees? Citations of papers you've published, and a vita on where and with whom you've worked?

I'm sure readers here would be interested to know what kind of scientist they're dealing with.