Bush's First Broken Promise

[Jeff]

What's next?

Tuesday March 13 9:39 PM ET
Bush Backs Off Campaign Pledge on Pollution

By Steve Holland

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush abandoned a campaign pledge on Tuesday, telling Congress he would not seek to impose mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide at electrical power plants.

The move angered environmentalists and was at odds with the spirit of the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 U.N. climate pact accord aimed at reducing greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. The accord was signed by the United States but has not been ratified by the Senate and Bush opposes it.

Bush had declared in a presidential campaign speech on energy that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, and thus susceptible to emissions controls, but aides said on Tuesday it had been a mistake to do so since it is not listed as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.

In a letter to Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, Bush outlined why he was shifting position.

He said he feared caps on carbon dioxide emissions, produced by the burning of coal and other fossil fuels, would lead to higher energy prices at a time when they are already increasing across the country, and after the shortages in California.

He pointed to a recently released Energy Department report that said including caps on carbon dioxide emissions ``would lead to an even more dramatic shift from coal to natural gas for electric power generation and significantly higher electricity prices.''

``This is important new information that warrants a reevaluation, especially at a time of rising energy prices and a serious energy shortage,'' Bush said.

The move was a disappointment to environmental and other interested groups. A coalition of 13 organizations last Friday had called on Bush to fulfill his pledge to clean up pollution generated by electric power plants.

``We're extremely distressed to read this. It sounds like Bush is bowing to heavy lobbying pressure from business interests and making a complete U-turn on a campaign promise he made,'' said Allen Mattison, spokesman for the Sierra Club, which was part of the coalition.

David Doniger, senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said: ``Bush has turned his back on the consensus of the science which shows that global warming is an alarming problem.''

``You just can't deal with global warming unless you deal with power plants. He's snuffed out the spark of what we had hoped would be a progressive environmental policy. He's caved in to the coal industry's medieval view of the science,'' said Doniger.

Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee called the Bush administration's decision ``a disappointing turn of events,'' adding that it would do nothing to blunt the current energy crisis in California and other western states.

``I had hoped President Bush would help us start a constructive discussion on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Now Congress will have to try to make progress on a comprehensive clean air approach without the administration, I guess,'' Reid said in a statement.

Bush pledged to work with Congress on a strategy to require power plants to reduce emissions of three other major pollutants, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury.

``Any such strategy would include phasing in reductions over a reasonable period of time, providing regulatory certainty, and offering market-based incentives to help industry meet the targets,'' Bush said.

``I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act,'' said Bush.

Bush also cited the ``incomplete state of scientific knowledge of the causes of, and solutions to, global climate change and the lack of commercially available technologies for removing and storing carbon dioxide.''

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Bush was on record as being concerned about the impact of global warming ``but he does believe we have to research more fully what the causes are so we can know what the solutions are.''

The great majority of research into global warming suggests greenhouses gases are a cause.

Hagel and three fellow Senate Republicans -- Larry Craig of Idaho, Pat Roberts of Kansas and Frank Murkowski of Alaska -- had sent Bush a letter about a week ago asking him to spell out his position after hearing conflicting information from the Environmental Protection Agency on what Bush intended to do.

``The only way I know how to do this is to go directly to the source, and give him a chance to lay it out, which he has done,'' Hagel told reporters on Capitol Hill.

Hagel said of Bush's letter, ``this is a clear statement. There are those who will agree with it and those who will disagree. I agree with it.''

------------------
"Don't waste it. We're here."

[Rocket River]

1st of many

Omen River

------------------

[Achebe]

Republicans don't have to worry... he'll only break the promises that he used as lies to define himself as a moderate.

------------------
"We've never been very comfortable with praising ourselves, but we're so proud of our new album, The Great Eastern, that we've got no problem telling people it's an absolutely fantastic record." EMMA POLLOCK of the delgados.

[ZRB]

Gee, what a surprise. I really thought Bush cared about the environment, oh well. It doesn't matter, its our grandchildren's problem, not ours.

------------------
Hakeem "The Dream" Olajuwon is the greatest player in the history of basketball. If you disagree, you are not a Rocket fan.

[BrianKagy]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">He said he feared caps on carbon dioxide emissions...would lead to higher energy prices at a time when they are already increasing across the country, and after the shortages in California.</font>

Yeah, **** the poor!

And anyone who thinks Bush is anything but a moderate needs to stop inventing arbitrary political designations just to make themselves feel better.

------------------
Things are tough all over, I know what you mean...

--Damon Johnson

[4chuckie]

Has he had relations with an intern yet and lied to the nation on national tv?
Bush can break all his campaign promises and never be as bad as Willy.

[TheFreak]

When a Democrat does it, "all politicians are liars". How nice! I love the consistency!

------------------
"****!" --Kenny Thomas

[Jeff]

They all lie. They all cheat. They all steal.

However, we should be consistent here. If conservatives can criticize liberals, we sure as hell can do the opposite.

BK: The poor???? You think this has ANYTHING to do with them? Just like that tax cut has everything to do with the poor.

The poor have ZERO voice in America with Democrats AND Republicans. This had NOTHING to do with protecting them. This had EVERYTHING to do with Bush protecting the special interests he has always protected, the same one's that turned Houston into the most polluted city in America.

When he allowed some of the worst polluting refineries in the US (in and around Houston) to be grandfathered so they wouldn't face EPA regulations (he said it would cost energy companies too much), I knew it was a big prolem. Those grandfathered companies produce 90% of the refinery emissions in a city where 55% of the smog comes from the chemical refineries.

My wife used to work at the newspaper in Baytown and she remembers how, on cloudy days, the pollution was awful because the refineries used the clouds to mask their emissions. On those low-cloud days, they would produce 10 to 20 times the emissions to avoid EPA regulations. Everyone knew it but no one could do anything because the chemical companies basically owned the town. Many of the people they were polluting the worst were their own, blue-collar workers who lived near the plants.

Now, THAT is ****ing the poor. They have to deal with the health problems as a result. Of course, they can't afford good healthcare and the government won't help them with that either.

------------------
"Don't waste it. We're here."

[Hydra]

I applaud this move. I live in California, as does my entire family. One month the electric bill at my grandmothers house jumped from $100 to $600. That is for one month. To impose regulations that would hinder energy production now would be lunacy. When the promise was made there was not an energy crises, now there is. If he promised not to go to war, and then the enemy started landing on our beaches, one would not expect him to keep his promise. This is determined by neccessity, not a predetermined plan to break the promises that may have gotten him elected (although the environmentalists probably didn't vote for bush anyway.)

------------------
"We messed with the Bull, and we got the horns." -- Larry Brown "quote" from AirBullard.com

[heypartner]

It must be that "Waffling Gene" he got from his daddy.

[Drewdog]

Big surprise...

Republicans have never given a damn about the environment.

"I suspect that had my dad not been president, he'd be asking the same questions: How'd your meeting go with so-and-so? … How did you feel when you stood up in front of the people for the State of the Union Address—state of the budget address, whatever you call it."—Interview with the Washington Post, March 9, 2001

[BrianKagy]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">The poor have ZERO voice in America with Democrats AND Republicans. This had NOTHING to do with protecting them.</font>

Thanks, exactly my point. The poor have no voice, so we can easily enact new environmental regulations that cause economic repercussions that the poor are not financially equipped to deal with.

In other words, *I* can afford higher energy prices, higher taxes on so-called environmentally unfriendly vehicles, higher prices on products manufactured by the companies who are targeted by these measures, and a higher cost of living in general. I'm assuming you can, too.

Can the poor? If we make it more expensive for them to heat their homes, drive their vehicles, and buy their staple goods, how are they going to pay for it?

[BrianKagy]

PS: I hate clean air, clean water, and healthy living. I wish that all of us, me included, lived in polluted cities, breathed smoggy air, and died of cancer at the age of 40. I especially wish children lived in polluted areas and got sick. REALLY sick, I mean like can't-even-get-out-of-bed sick.

After all, I'm a Republican.

------------------
Pollution rules! Clean air sucks! I hope you're coughing, where ever you are!

[Achebe]

I knew it Kagy! I knew it! http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/tongue.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">He pointed to a recently released Energy Department report that said including caps on carbon dioxide emissions ``would lead to an even more dramatic shift from coal to natural gas for electric power generation and significantly higher electricity prices.''</font>

Call me a cynic (cynic). But when someone has the Oil Industry background that Bush has, you'll have a hard time convincing me that he isn't getting a double whammy here. Industry doesn't want caps on carbon dioxide. E.g. the Oil industry is threatened by a push in electrical power technology. You and I both know that most of the differences in cost come in R&D, just like w/ every other industry. After the technology exists, and the users accept that technology, there aren't going to be schisms in cost. That's bull.

Besides, Bush's answer to curb the energy issue is to fetching drill in the ANWR. I just read a fetching suck report that estimated costs at $45+/barrell to drill there through the permafrost, let alone the costs to make sure that one of the few outstanding pristine natural places on earth remains that way.

This has fetching next to nothing to do w/ poor people and their high energy costs. This is a sparkler waved around in front of the publics' eyes while Bush gives his Coal & Oil buddies a huuuuuuuuuuuugggge gift.

So get off of your 'man of the people' bs. Jeff gave us the quote where Bush's own confidant laughed at the thought that the US accepted him as a moderate.

------------------
(===)

[This message has been edited by Achebe (edited March 14, 2001).]

[JettaKnight]

If we all just went out and bought electric cars then it wouldn't be a problem anymore. Or we could breathe less then that would solve the carbon dioxide problem.

------------------
Hinei ma tov umanaim,
shevet achim gam yachad.

[BrianKagy]

I'm not claiming he's the ****ing 'man of the people'. I'm pointing out how hypocritical it is for people to claim they've got all of our best interests at heart when their recommendations to protect those interests will **** the poor in this country.

Why don't you try answering my question instead of putting words in my mouth: how are the poor going to afford your munificence?

------------------
Pollution rules! Clean air sucks! I hope you're coughing, where ever you are!

[Achebe]

1)
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee called the Bush administration's decision ``a disappointing turn of events,'' adding that it would do nothing to blunt the current energy crisis in California and other western states.</font>

2) Given that another of his suggestions to curb the energy crisis is to drill in the ANWR, which I already pointed out is extremely expensive (and wouldn't actually do anything to handle the energy crisis in time)... it's obvious that 'poor people' aren't his big concern. Barrels are going for $30.00 right now... can you sell someone a $45.00 barrel, fetch no!

3) Energy Tax credits for people. Gore proposed this, did dud every accept it?

4) Just like republicans before me, I'll say "get a job". If you can't afford fuel, you suck, die! Our economy demands that 5% of the people be unemployed and cold all of the time! http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
(===)

[Raven Lunatic]

Technically he has not broken his promise yet. No where did he say that if the energy prices go back down, he will not again attempt to enforce the new regulations. People just assume he is in the power industries pocket, but there is no proof for that. Give the guy some time to prove himself.

------------------
"all your base are belong to us!"
"you have no chance to survive make your time!"

[Jeff]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by BrianKagy:
PS: I hate clean air, clean water, and healthy living. I wish that all of us, me included, lived in polluted cities, breathed smoggy air, and died of cancer at the age of 40. I especially wish children lived in polluted areas and got sick. REALLY sick, I mean like can't-even-get-out-of-bed sick.

</font>

If that is truly the case, why would you EVER favor profit over environmental regulation? That is the bottom line here. It will cost energy companies a lot of money to regulate them, so we don't do it. When the oil boom busted in Houston, companies were forced to diversify and find new ways to profit.

Do any of us honestly believe that big companies will just shut their doors if they are forced to re-tool their operations to better protect the environment? Hell no. They'll just adapt like they always have.

However, if we do nothing about it, nothing will ever change because big companies are lazy. They won't change unless they are forced to even if it means polluting the air, water and earth. I wish they would prove me wrong, but they've done everything in their power in the past to protect profits over people, so why should now be any different?

------------------
"Don't waste it. We're here."

[Achebe]

Beautiful post Jeff.

------------------
(===)

[haven]

Clinton actually fulfilled 95% of his campaign promises. You have to go back a long way to find a better percentage than that. If you want a President who'll do well in policy, Clinton's your man... if you want a man who goofs on policy but probably won't screw an intern... Bush.

Easy choice for me.

Bush's argument that the scientific data is a complete farce. I've debated and read most of the extant literature on the subject, and only people being PAID BY THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRIES really believe global warming is not a result of human activities. Carbon dioxide is most certainly the culprit. We *know* this.

We also know that clean forms of energy are not MUCH more expensive than fossil fuels. Just have to provide incentive. I'm sick of our government allowing the power producing industries to externalize the costs for greater profits when all of society will pay the price later on.

------------------
Boston College - Big East -East Division Regular Season Champs

Worst to First in 2001!

[This message has been edited by haven (edited March 14, 2001).]

[Major]

The best solution to pollution that I've ever seen was on The West Wing. Basically, make mandatory guidelines on emissions, but allow companies to buy and sell "extra" pollution.

For example, if Company A reduced its pollution levels beyond the necessary levels, then they could sell the "extra pollution" to other companies who might not be able to reduce their emissions as easily. The price is determine by the open market.

What this does is create incentive to lower pollution. If you don't lower pollution enough, you're going to have to buy the extra pollution limits. Companies who focus on on R&D and reducing emissions can then profit off of those companies that don't.

Better yet, if not enough companies reduce their emissions, the value of those extra pollution levels increases (since demand increases), meaning the companies that do manage to do it are even better off. You end up getting the results you want while offering rewards for going above and beyond your duty and encouraging research in the area. (As opposed to people just going down to the minimum requirements)

------------------
http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.

[dc sports]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by haven:
Clinton actually fulfilled 95% of his campaign promises. You have to go back a long way to find a better percentage than that. If you want a President who'll do well in policy, Clinton's your man </font>

Without getting into a huge debate here, do you have documentation on that? I doubt any President in history achieved 95% of what he promised he would do, because it's just not possible. Clinton left a lot of promises unfilled, but like every president (past, present, and future), he just didn't talk about them, concentrating on what he did accomplish.

On the policy part, it's Clinton's lack of an energy policy that created the problem. Also, he had 8 years, and obviously didn't put in place any policies to regulate carbon dioxide emissions.


------------------
Stay Cool...

[Major]

On the policy part, it's Clinton's lack of an energy policy that created the problem. Also, he had 8 years, and obviously didn't put in place any policies to regulate carbon dioxide emissions.

Just to clarify, he signed the U.N. Kyoto Protocol that's being discussed here. The Senate never ratified it, though.

Without getting into a huge debate here, do you have documentation on that? I doubt any President in history achieved 95% of what he promised he would do, because it's just not possible. Clinton left a lot of promises unfilled, but like every president (past, present, and future), he just didn't talk about them, concentrating on what he did accomplish.

This is something I don't think anyone can ever get an accurate read on, simply because Presidents make promises all the time, sometimes in little campaign stops, etc. There's no way to even tell what promises were made, let alone kept.

With Clinton, though, I think a strong argument can be made that he (and Congress) came through on most of his pledges. The way to look at it is just look at the issues from 1992 vs. 2000:

1992: Economy, Health Care, Education, Welfare, Crime, Budget Deficit

2000: Prescription drugs, Tax Cuts, Social Security/Medicare, Education

The fact that Crime, the Economy, the Budget Deficit, and Welfare are no longer high priorities says something about the last 8 years, whoever you want to give credit to. The fact that minor issues like Prescription Drugs get major play also says how many of the "top priorities" were dealt with.

Health Care was the major failure in that bunch, and Education has made good progress, although there is still a long way to go.


------------------
http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.

[TheFreak]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Clinton actually fulfilled 95% of his campaign promises. You have to go back a long way to find a better percentage than that. </font>

I guess the middle class tax cut would be in that 5 percent. Can anyone else name another broken Clinton campaign promise quickly so haven can get busy giving us 48 that he kept?

------------------
"There's a lot of things you can say about playing with Dream, but I get to say, `I played with the Dream.' That speaks for itself." --Walt Williams

"****!" --Kenny Thomas

[This message has been edited by TheFreak (edited March 14, 2001).]

[dc rock]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by 4chuckie:
Has he had relations with an intern yet and lied to the nation on national tv?
Bush can break all his campaign promises and never be as bad as Willy.</font>

that didnt affect me. thats his personal life. the enviroment on the other hand affects everyone.



------------------
http://www.democrats.com

[SamCassell]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by shanna:
The best solution to pollution that I've ever seen was on The West Wing. Basically, make mandatory guidelines on emissions, but allow companies to buy and sell "extra" pollution.
</font>

I'm pretty sure that is the way it is for some types of pollution, at least in Texas. Two years ago I took a class where that system was discussed. It was implemented through a lisencing system, where a company was given so many credits of air pollution possible. I seem to remember that the problem was that there was a real incentive to get lisences for non-operational factories for the sole purpose of selling those credits to the heaviest polluters, who would buy the credits because it was cheaper than actually obtaining the emissions-controlling equipment. It was even more expensive for the smaller factories to buy the pricey, environmentally-friendly equipment, due to economies of scale.

Of course compounding the problem is the fact that so many older companies are grandfathered in under the new standards and don't need to put up with any of this.

------------------

[Gascon]

I guess noone's going to come through with that second, Freak. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/tongue.gif

Clinton was one of the great BS-artists of all time, but he did the work (for the most part) that he promised he would do. His line of BS only strengthened his foreign policy. Foreign leaders actually respected him...something George W. can't say. Also, Clinton failed to pass a major health-care bill, but that was not for lack of trying. His bill was shot down in Congress. Too radical, it was thought.

I find, overall, that all of you Clinton detractors hate the person, but can't find too many points in attacking the president. Your boy Bush is only proving to be a chip off the old block, as far as I'm concerned.

------------------
"One ring to rule them all,
One ring to find them;
One ring to bring them all and on the court unite them.
In the land of Houston where the Rockets lie."

[sirhangover]

bush broke a promise...admit it people..

those of you that want to talk about clinton like 'timmy threw sand so i did' what kind of ***** is that?...because clinton did does that make it okay or more acceptable?

weak.

------------------
"no matter how good she looks someone... somewhere..is tired of her *****"

[dc rock]

"I find, overall, that all of you Clinton detractors hate the person, but can't find too many points in attacking the president."

exactly

------------------
http://www.democrats.com

[sirhangover]

btw great post jeff i actually agree with you jeff..right on..and i am a womanizing chauvanist..imagine that..



------------------
"no matter how good she looks someone... somewhere..is tired of her *****"

[Jeff]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by sirhangover:
btw great post jeff i actually agree with you jeff..right on..and i am a womanizing chauvanist..imagine that..
</font>

So sensative. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/wink.gif

------------------
"Don't waste it. We're here."

[BrianKagy]

Does anyone know how to get the catalytic converter out of a 1997 Accord? I already took the muffler off, which I hope increases pollution, but I believe in being proactive in doing my duty.

------------------
Pollution rules! Clean air sucks! I hope you're coughing, where ever you are!

[TheFreak]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I guess noone's going to come through with that second, Freak. </font>

I think you just did. Thanks:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Also, Clinton failed to pass a major health-care bill, but that was not for lack of trying. </font>

haven can now name his 48 promises Clinton kept before we continue.



------------------
"There's a lot of things you can say about playing with Dream, but I get to say, `I played with the Dream.' That speaks for itself." --Walt Williams

"****!" --Kenny Thomas

[MadMax]

I don't see this one as a broken promise. It's simply adjusting to deal with the conditions of an economic slowdown in the midst of an energy crisis that is completely understated. What I do see as a broken promise is the fact that Bush is not rescinding the orders issued by Clinton to swallow up land under the guise of protecting the environment. That concerns me.

Hydra offers an intelligent, rational post here, and no one responds. He lives in Calif and says his energy bill has gone from $100 to $600!! I'm sorry, but right now, there aren't a lot of people who could absorb that kind of increase. Offering up more regulation right now is not the solution. Jeff, you say that companies will just retool instead of shutting down, if forced to meet new regulations. You're half right...in a market economy, who pays for that retooling. The market does...they simply pass the costs along.

We all want clear air...but at the same time we all want the economy to keep chugging along..and we want to be able to go home and have heat, air conditioning and lights for our families. But make no mistake, those desires are at tension with one another. Ask the good folks of California what that feels like. Quite simply, you don't get something for nothing. Until the technology is developed for cleaner production, I'm not willing to make the sacrifices necessary for clear air...I simply couldn't afford the kind of rate hikes for energy that they're having in California...as the owner of a small business already subjected to an increase in my commercial rent and as a family man who finds my power bill on the rise again this morning. Sorry.

------------------

[RocketMan Tex]

BK...use a sledgehammer and a chainsaw. After you're done, you can buy one of them newfangled gas guzzling SUVs. You know, so your friends at the oil companies can get even richer! http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/wink.gif

------------------
"Blues is a Healer"
--John Lee Hooker

[Drewdog]

"You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test.''—Townsend, Tenn., Feb. 21, 2001

George Bush Jr.

[Jeff]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by MadMax:
Jeff, you say that companies will just retool instead of shutting down, if forced to meet new regulations. You're half right...in a market economy, who pays for that retooling. The market does...they simply pass the costs along.

We all want clear air...but at the same time we all want the economy to keep chugging along..and we want to be able to go home and have heat, air conditioning and lights for our families.
</font>

I never said it would be easy but the fact is that we are burning ourselves out and fast. Energy companies like Reliant are using every bit of fossil fuel they can get because we all continue to waste it thinking it will last forever.

They then raise the cost because it becomes more scarce. It is a vicious cycle that we can either deal with now or pay for later.

At some point, we all have to be accountable for what we will leave to our children and grandchildren. Do we want air conditioning so badly (every day of the summer) that we are willing to plow through every natural resource just to have it? Must we drive our cars so much and demand one's so large that it wastes fossil fuels and pollutes our air to the point it becomes unbreathable?

Think of one simple option. Houses that are retrofitted with solar panels can live WITHOUT power from energy companies. A house around 2,000 square feet can be completely outfitted with solar panels for around $20K and NEVER have to have power from an energy company again. Even a FEW solar panels can reduce the amount of energy significantly if builders would only choose to employ them.

If we all truly want clean air, water and ground, we have to make sacrifices. We have to make choices that will create that reality. You either want no pollution or you don't. If you support the constant cycle of waste and spend, which is exactly what chemical and energy companies do now, than you don't have to change anything. If you want to save and conserve, you have to change how you think. We have to invent a new way of thinking about energy. Unfortunately, no energy company wants to change because it might cost them money. However, through our habits and regulations, we can force the changes.

For once, those of us who don't need the heat so much or don't need the a/c that much or don't have to drive our cars because we could walk, ride a bike or take public transportation MUST do those things, not because we necessarily want to but because it is our reponsibility to not only help out the rest of humanity and the generations to come after us, but because we CAN.

If all you did was turned your a/c up a few degrees, turned your heat down a few degrees, walked or rode your bike to the store or took a bus or car pool to work, you could save yourself and others thousands of dollars every year in wasted energy. I personally am guilty of running the a/c too much. No longer.

This year, I've made a pledge to drive less (working at home helps), use less a/c and heat and bring the costs of my energy uses down dramatically. I have no interest in funding more Reliant price increases just so they can justify their bottom line. Their CEO is worth a couple hundred million. Let him sweat it out some too!

The point is, if we think the California energy crisis is bad, wait until our natural resources are really gone. If we think it costs us alot to deal with energy problems now, wait until we are FORCED to make the change. If you care AT ALL about what this world will be like in 50, 100 or 150 years, you need to start thinking about it NOW.

------------------
"Don't waste it. We're here."

[BrianKagy]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">If all you did was turned your a/c up a few degrees...you could save yourself and others thousands of dollars every year in wasted energy</font>

I'm all for cutting my utility bill, Jeff, so I went ahead and "done did" this-- but unless I'm balancing my checkbook wrong, I'm not saving thousands of dollars by doing so. Unless you wanted me to leave the AC and heat off 365 days a year...? http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/wink.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">The point is, if we think the California energy crisis is bad, wait until our natural resources are really gone.</font>

Now, you and I will not live that long, but I'm willing to bet you whatever money you want at whatever odds you ask that by the time we run out of fossil fuels and the like, alternatives far superior to solar power and bike-riding will have been discovered and implemented.

------------------
Pollution rules! Clean air sucks! I hope you're coughing, where ever you are!

[Jeff]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by BrianKagy:
Now, you and I will not live that long, but I'm willing to bet you whatever money you want at whatever odds you ask that by the time we run out of fossil fuels and the like, alternatives far superior to solar power and bike-riding will have been discovered and implemented.

</font>

Ah, the ol' "things will be better someday." That's realistic. I'd prefer to be a little more proactive.

Hell, even I'm not leaving my a/c off. What is ya? Nuts? This is Texas after all. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/wink.gif


------------------
I live to make Brian Kagy's life difficult.

[BrianKagy]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Ah, the ol' "things will be better someday." That's realistic. I'd prefer to be a little more proactive</font>

It's more realistic to assume that we've reached the peak of technology and that innovation has ceased...? http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/rolleyes.gif

[Achebe]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Now, you and I will not live that long, but I'm willing to bet you whatever money you want at whatever odds you ask that by the time we run out of fossil fuels and the like, alternatives far superior to solar power and bike-riding will have been discovered and implemented.</font>

And they won't have been discovered using any Republican ideologies. They will have been discovered b/c of good old Socialistic California Law. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif

BTW MadMax, I glazed over reading this too, but Sen. Harry Reid of Nev. said that Bush doing this won't help the Western states at all. I don't know how valid that claim is, but I haven't been able to find anyone challenging that claim either.

------------------
(===)

[SamCassell]

When "It" gets here, it will fix everything. Go ahead and waste all the fossil fuel you want. We won't need it when we're all riding those unicycles everywhere.

------------------

[rimbaud]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by BrianKagy:
It's more realistic to assume that we've reached the peak of technology and that innovation has ceased...? http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/rolleyes.gif</font>

Uhhh, not very good logic. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif

We will never reach a technology peak, new innovations will continually occur. This means that we should never implement our "will be obsolete in a few decades" technology?

See, BK...the longer you do stuff with finite resources that are harmful for our biosphere, the more damage it inflicts on said biosphere. That is irreversable. Sure, a few million years will lead to restoration, but what good will that do then? If we can do anything now to stop it (or slow it) -- no matter how "primitive" it will seem in 100 years -- we should do it.

Besides, wouldn't energy increase (IF they were to occur) be offset by all those huge refunds Bush will give the american family?

------------------
Whitey will pay.

[Achebe]

Exactly rimbaud!

I bought the Dreamcast even though the PS2 was coming out... so what, I got to play awesome technology for a year and a half longer than PS2 people...

You have to **** or get off of the pot. Besides, the combustion engine is from the 1800s, we could do much better than that in an environmentally friendly manner.

------------------
(===)

[rimbaud]

Poor Kagy, don't you understand sarcasm? The whole tax refund thing? i am fully aware the $500 refund will not offset these huge enrgy bills.

As per your serious arguments...

No one is sayin, "scrap the system, only use solar power." People are sayin, start using this technology instead of sitting on it. Toyota and Honda have finally come out with electric hybrids...and they are not expensive and go plenty fast enough. That isn't the issue, though. This hybrid technology has been around for some time, but no one has done anything with it. Don't you think i it is encouraged and used (publically in tess, etc..better products will result?

Sitting on a patent does nothing for technological progress.

We did not fly to the moon with a wright brothers plane but we also did not hold off working on flight until we were sure we had the technology to reach the moon.

Additionally, your argument becomes irrelevant when dealing with public health concerns. I realize that we are all spoiled americans and cannot deal with a few years of having cars that max out at 70 mph...but come on!

I also realize that you enjoy your stance (screw the air, I love pollution, etc) and feel empowered by it as you rail against people like Jeff. That is fine. However, enjoyable as it may be, it is uneccessary in a discussion of technological progress.

------------------
Whitey will pay.

[Achebe]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">You're right, of course; I keep forgetting about how much faster socialism advances scientific innovation compared to the free market.</font>

Exactly. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/wink.gif

Toyota and Honda wouldn't have made their 600 mpg cars if it weren't for California's initiatives. The electric Audi A3 wouldn't be going off in Western Europe if Europeans weren't a bit more aggro about clean air than Americans. Hell, Smartcars wouldn't exist. Blah Blah Blah.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I know solar energy exists, and I know that using expensive electric-hybrid cars we can get 80 miles to the gallon. The marketplace, however, does not like or want these innovations. Their implementation is not rare because of a conspiracy on the part of big business. It's because people don't want to drive cars that go 0-60 at the same speed as a moped.

When attractive products that are environmentally friendly are invented, people will buy them. If my Accord had an electric engine that got the same performance and required the same number of fuel stops as its combustion engine at the same price, I'd buy one. Until then, forget it.</font>

Don't worry Brian, these cars are coming soon. They're also not expensive (the Toyota is a little bit less than 20K, half of what the gas guzzling plastic interior pieces of crap people call SUVs are these days.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I hear this a lot from you people when you want to dismiss disagreements from the right-- never mind your arguments, we have to do something about this right now.</font>

What arguments? Just b/c conservatives don't recognize immediacy or would rather grease the palms of their friends in the Industry doesn't make any enviro. points less salient. Why do conservatives protect the biotech industry??? B/c the biotech industry pays for R&D, and they have to pass those costs along. Hell... I admit that (it took me a while to accept it).

Just b/c you don't put clean air on the same par as research in diabetes, or you don't recognize the simple point that if every country had the same pollutant production as the US, then our O3 layer wouldn't exist in a few years doesn't make environmental points less salient, it just suggests that you have a lack of vision or don't truly respect the immediacy of the problems (it's our grandkids problem, eh??).

It is awesome than California has the laws that they have now. The Dreamcast is cheap right now b/c the PS2 is around. Like Jeff pointed out, imagine doing this if the gas reserves were less, or if OPEC actually took a stand against the US (whoa).

In SLC this past Dec/January, there was an "inversion" (cute word for smog) that was so bad that babies and seniors were told not to be outdoors if at all possible (warning at 60, levels were at 150 on whatever scale). We weren't supposed to exercise at all. That's gross. That is a problem. That is immediate, regardless of the conservatives that remain on the fetchin' pot. But what do I expect? http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/rolleyes.gif

------------------
(===)

[Jeff]

I think I'll let rimmy and achebe handle the argument. They are doing quite well. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/wink.gif

As for the market doesn't want it scenario, car companies were never interested in making fuel-efficient cars because many of them are directly and indirectly supported by oil companies who make their money from the gas those cars guzzle.

And Achebe and rimmy are both right. The new electric/gas hybrids go plenty fast, get great gas mileage and perform very well. The Honda Insight goes 700 miles on one tank of gas for Pete's sake!!!

As for solar power, you mean to tell me that $20K for solar cells for your house is more expensive than $100 per month for the next 50 years assuming your light bill is $100 or less, which of course it won't be?

Check the technologies before you decide they are too expensive or no one wants them. No one gets told about them or the dangers of not using them, so the problem goes ignored.

No one REALLY wants to get fat and die prematurely of a heart attack, but people keep cramming Whoppers down making Burger King (or McDonald's or Wendy's) richer every day thanks to the power of advertising.

The problem is that burgers don't make ME fat and sick too. Pollution does.

------------------
The Walrus was Paul.

[BrianKagy]

Now THIS is funny:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Poor Kagy, don't you understand sarcasm?</font>

...and...

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I also realize that you enjoy your stance (screw the air, I love pollution, etc)</font>

Thank you for the laugh.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">People are sayin, start using this technology instead of sitting on it.</font>

And *I* am saying let the marketplace dictate that. If people want it, great, but you don't have any business dictating purchasing preferences.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Toyota and Honda have finally come out with electric hybrids...and they are not expensive and go plenty fast enough. </font>

That is your opinion. If you like them, go buy one. I personally do not find that those cars fit my needs. And you don't have the right to tell me otherwise.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">That isn't the issue, though. This hybrid technology has been around for some time, but no one has done anything with it.</font>

Because people don't want it yet. I do not think this is really as hard to understand as you are pretending.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Don't you think i it is encouraged and used (publically in tess, etc..better products will result?</font>

Yes, and when Honda develops a hybrid car that it can sell at the expense of its gas-powered market share, people will buy it. In the current market, people are choosing not to buy hybrid cars.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Sitting on a patent does nothing for technological progress.</font>

Who is 'sitting on it'...?

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">We did not fly to the moon with a wright brothers plane but we also did not hold off working on flight until we were sure we had the technology to reach the moon.</font>

Yes, and we also didn't outlaw or tax flight into oblivion until something better came along.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I realize that we are all spoiled americans and cannot deal with a few years of having cars that max out at 70 mph...but come on!</font>

Now THAT is a compelling argument. "Aw come ON!!!"

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Toyota and Honda wouldn't have made their 600 mpg cars if it weren't for California's initiatives.</font>

Achebe, if you honestly believe that Toyota and Honda built those cars because the state of California told them to, as opposed to the belief on the part of those corporations that there was a profit to be made in doing so, then I have just lost a tremendous amount of respect for your understanding of the business community.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Just b/c conservatives don't recognize immediacy or would rather grease the palms of their friends in the Industry doesn't make any enviro</font>

Ah, accusals of ignorance and accusations of illegality. Now THAT is the way to convince someone your argument's a winner.

I'm sorry I don't "recognize immediacy"; I prefer to think of it as DISAGREEING WITH YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE IMMEDIACY. Your condescension towards those of us who are willing to tell Chicken Little to go **** himself amuses me.

And I don't HAVE any friends in "the industry".

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">if every country had the same pollutant production as the US, then our O3 layer wouldn't exist in a few years</font>

What do you base that on? Can you provide documentation proving this? Or is it just a hypothesis sponsored by an advocacy group?

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">car companies were never interested in making fuel-efficient cars because many of them are directly and indirectly supported by oil companies who make their money from the gas those cars guzzle.</font>

I'm not going to touch conspiracy theories.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">The new electric/gas hybrids go plenty fast, get great gas mileage and perform very well. The Honda Insight goes 700 miles on one tank of gas for Pete's sake!!!</font>

Wow, so you only have to stop once every 700 miles to refuel...? Or are there additional recharging stops you're not mentioning?

PS, I don't consider 0-60 in 10.5 seconds particularly impressive.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Check the technologies before you decide they are too expensive or no one wants them.</font>

If more people want solar panel-powered houses than I think, then where is the marketplace demand...?

------------------
Pollution rules! Clean air sucks! I hope you're coughing, where ever you are!

[This message has been edited by BrianKagy (edited March 15, 2001).]

[Achebe]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Achebe, if you honestly believe that Toyota and Honda built those cars because the state of California told them to, as opposed to the belief on the part of those corporations that there was a profit to be made in doing so, then I have just lost a tremendous amount of respect for your understanding of the business community.</font>

I said: Toyota and Honda wouldn't have made their 600 mpg cars if it weren't for California's initiatives. This is of course true. It's also one in the same w/ your notion that they did it b/c of profit. If you want to sell your cars in California, then you'll do a few things. Do you think California's 30,000,000 people aren't a sufficient marketplace for a company to change its plans? Is that why you're incredulous?

I have a Honda ad on my lap right now from the National Geographic 01/01. "... the California Air Resources Board has recently issued an even stricter emissions standard for 2004: Super-Ultra-Low-Emission Vehicle (SULEV). Naturally, we've decided there's no reason to wait...". Gee, it sounds as if California very easily shapes the marketplace. You can find additional info/hardline data on requirements for auto makers on sites such as evworld.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Ah, accusals of ignorance and accusations of illegality. Now THAT is the way to convince someone your argument's a winner.

I'm sorry I don't "recognize immediacy"; I prefer to think of it as DISAGREEING WITH YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE IMMEDIACY. Your condescension towards those of us who are willing to tell Chicken Little to go **** himself amuses me.

And I don't HAVE any friends in "the industry".</font>

First off, conservatives have been telling Chicken Little to go **** himself for some time now. I don't know what's different about now... except for the fact that the Republican party happens to be able to tie Chicken Little to one of their big contributors right now. Plus, as far as I know, "lobbying" and "greasing palms" hasn't become illegal yet.

If you didn't get the analogy, Republicans didn't care too much for Chicken Little when it came to Health Care reform... or the Patient's Bill of Rights, etc. But why should they, the Health Care Industry made such pretty charts, and you get tons of money for looking at the pretty charts.

I'm glad though that you recognize that there is a problem Brian. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif Now it's just getting Conservatives to postpone "conserving" and get on to "fixing".

When I get more time I'll make the argument that Chicken Little actually isn't getting fetched, b/c of all of the benefits that s/he gets w/ clean air, the ability for Little Little to see Polar Bears (they'll probably be gone in 50 years) when they're kids, etc.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Wow, so you only have to stop once every 700 miles to refuel...? Or are there additional recharging stops you're not mentioning?</font>

You only have to stop once. Just look up Honda Insight or Toyota Prius or Hybrid and you should be able to find a ton of info on the new technology. The car goes off battery when it needs to/can and charges the battery itself as it's running. These cars are totally viable. I personally would just rather have a pure electric car for commuting. Most people drive less than 40 miles per day... and I should be able to revamp an old 914 to do better than that for only 5K (plus my wife'll look cute driving around, reeeeoow!). You could have a hybrid, in the meantime, for road trips, etc.

------------------
(===)

[mrpaige]

Don't worry Brian, these cars are coming soon. They're also not expensive (the Toyota is a little bit less than 20K, half of what the gas guzzling plastic interior pieces of crap people call SUVs are these days.

I've actually seen several Honda Insights driving around town (even saw a couple in Amarillo), and I assume I'll see some of thos Toyota Prius (or whatever they're called), too. I wouldn't mind having one myself for commuting (if I had anywhere to commute to). It wouldn't replace a traditional automobile for me, but I would use one a good bit.

Here's a question, though, was it CAFE that led us down the road toward more fuel efficient cars, or was it the oil embargoes driving up the price of gasoline (and driving folks to buy imports such as the original Honda Civic, etc.) Do the car companies make better cars because government rules required them to or because the marketplace started demanding them?

Personally, I think it's a little of both. As with many questions, the answer isn't clear cut, and as with many large-scale innovations, it isn't just the free market or the government that pushes the innovation along.

So, why don't you quit arguing and realize that you're both right (or both wrong, depending on how you want to look at it). http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
Houston Sports Board (http://www.houstonsportsboard.com)
Help Finance My Movie - Buy A T-Shirt (http://www.cafepress.com/almostmovie)

[Achebe]

Bravo mrpaige. It's obviously both. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif

That's great that you have seen the Insight around. It's awesome to hear that it's doing well in Texas too. Is that Houston or Austin? I'll be even more excited if it's Houston, merely b/c it seems like a bigger accomplishment (I guess there are hippies like Jeff in Houston though, so I shouldn't be as suprised http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif).

BTW Brian, my wife's seriously considering UT Austin for grad school, so maybe we'll be able to have some of these fun debates more often during Rocketball, etc. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
(===)

[Achebe]

btw, I like smiley faces.

[mrpaige]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Achebe:
That's great that you have seen the Insight around. It's awesome to hear that it's doing well in Texas too. Is that Houston or Austin? I'll be even more excited if it's Houston, merely b/c it seems like a bigger accomplishment (I guess there are hippies like Jeff in Houston though, so I shouldn't be as suprised http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif).</font>

Actually, it's the DFW area (aside from Amarillo, which I already mentioned) where I've seen them (I live in Arlington).

------------------
Houston Sports Board (http://www.houstonsportsboard.com)
Help Finance My Movie - Buy A T-Shirt (http://www.cafepress.com/almostmovie)

[Jeff]

PS, I don't consider 0-60 in 10.5 seconds particularly impressive.

You have a Honda Accord. So, what exactly is your point? It isn't like you're blazing around in a Ferrari or even a vehicle with room like an SUV. It's not like you are drag racing or hauling around the kids to soccer practice.

As for people not wanting them, if you live in a city where gas/hybrids don't exist, how would you even know to buy one? Until car manufacturers agressively market them, they won't sell.

People buy what is marketed to them, plain and simple. If that weren't the case, there wouldn't be an entire industry dedicated to retail marketing. In that case, people would buy only what they needed and most of the worthless junk bought in America would never be made.

What people want only drives a small percentage of the sales industry. My wife and I have been reading A TON about retail marketing recently in order to grow our business and I can tell you that the vast majority of people who write about marketing will tell you that only about 10% of the things bought in the US are purchased because people really need or want them. Most everything else sells because companies know how to convince people they need whatever it is they are selling.

If you think something isn't cool to wear - out of style, whatever - you stop wearing it and buy something new. Why? It is based on image. Your image? No, an image someone somewhere arbitrarily created as a way to sell clothes. By changing styles, you became a willing victim in that process. No one demanded we go from skinny ties to fat ties. No one said, "Damn it, bell bottoms MUST come back in style." A clothing manufacturer decided for us and people bought into it.

Why would anyone buy soft drinks? Carbonated, colored sugar water. Does anyone REALLY need it or really even want it? It doesn't do anything to help anyone. It doesn't make you smarter or healthier. Many studies suggest the opposite. Yet, every year millions buy it and the majority buy Coke. Why? Because the people at Coke are marketing geniuses. They know exactly how to sell their product - how to make you want it, how to play on your emotions to make you believe that drinking their product is that much better than drinking Pepsi, when it really isn't.

Do you believe that the masses were demanding carbonated, colored sugar water before it was created? Would they have just kept drinking water, alcohol or juice if soda never existed? Absolutely.

That is the beauty in marketing to people. They buy what you tell them to buy. I'm not suggesting that we are automotons, but it has been demonstrated time and time again that people base their purchases on how they feel about themselves and how they think others feel about them, not because they really need or want anything other than food, water, air and shelter.

Achebe: I just saw the Honda Insight in Houston the other day. They are VERY cool looking - basically like an old CRX.

------------------
The Walrus was Paul.

[BrianKagy]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">And they won't have been discovered using any Republican ideologies. They will have been discovered b/c of good old Socialistic California Law</font>

You're right, of course; I keep forgetting about how much faster socialism advances scientific innovation compared to the free market.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">We will never reach a technology peak, new innovations will continually occur. This means that we should never implement our "will be obsolete in a few decades" technology?</font>

Er, no-- it means that if what we've got is unacceptable, we don't scrap what we're currently doing until something better comes along. Damn, we didn't try to fly to the moon using the Wright Brothers' plane. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif

I know solar energy exists, and I know that using expensive electric-hybrid cars we can get 80 miles to the gallon. The marketplace, however, does not like or want these innovations. Their implementation is not rare because of a conspiracy on the part of big business. It's because people don't want to drive cars that go 0-60 at the same speed as a moped.

When attractive products that are environmentally friendly are invented, people will buy them. If my Accord had an electric engine that got the same performance and required the same number of fuel stops as its combustion engine at the same price, I'd buy one. Until then, forget it.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Besides, wouldn't energy increase (IF they were to occur) be offset by all those huge refunds Bush will give the american family?</font>

??????????? "Let's give people a tax cut so we can raise the cost of living by taxing business"...?

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">You have to **** or get off of the pot. Besides, the combustion engine is from the 1800s, we could do much better than that in an environmentally friendly manner.</font>

I hear this a lot from you people when you want to dismiss disagreements from the right-- never mind your arguments, we have to do something about this right now.

That is not a good argument. I think there is a very reasonable case against the poorly-thought-out suggestions I'm hearing here. I'm certainly not going to change my mind and accept the proposals because we have to do something NOW.

As for doing better than the combustion engine, that's an awfully specious statement. 'The internal combustion engine is old and produces pollution, so we can do better'...? Where is your proof we can do any better...?

If you really think so, why haven't we done better?

------------------
Pollution rules! Clean air sucks! I hope you're coughing, where ever you are!

[rimbaud]

BK,

I'm glad you got some laughs...that was the point of those comments. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif

Incidentally (for everyone -- not just Brian), there is a new 3 wheel electric car that I read about. It costs $12,000, maxes out at 60 mph, is pure electric, and plugs into any outlet. Anyway, 3 days ago I saw one driving around here in Atlana - it was funky. Two wheels in front, one in back, very space-age looking. It kept up with traffic just fine as well. I also know there is a bigger one for about $18,000.

Back to BK...

The flight comparison really is irrelevant. Of course banning flight is not the way to perfect flight, but no one is suggesting the banning of transportation to get to ideal transportation either, so that needs to go away.

In regards to market dictating development...as Jeff pointed out, it is reverse. People are not buying hybrids in droves yet because they have only been out for a few months. many people do not buy cars in thier first run, anyway -- regardless of engine type.

If people do not know hybrid technology exists, how can they demand it? Consumers don't dictate much of anything in our economy, thinking otherwise is simply walking around with blinders on or sticking religiously to the idea of pure, perfect capitalism at the expense of being realistic.

Again, no one is saying completely stop making combustion engines, tear down factories, etc. They are simply saying start incorporating newer, cleaner technology in the hopes that the old can eventually be phased out. It happens in every form of technology growth, why can't it happen here? Especially when there is a public health risk. Even if you do not think it is as immediate as others, do you not agree that it is and will continue to be a problem/concern?

This is in line with my "come on" argument. No, it was not an attempt at great argumentation, it was simply pointing out my befuddlement at people weighing acceleration, max speed (above speed limits anyway), etc over global health concerns. It is simply too provincial and self-centered for me to comprehend. Even with the excuse, "it is not a problem now.." comes problems. Putting it off until everyone in the world agrees it is a problem is going to be too late. Continually passing it down to future generations creates a mindset that also gets passed down. That is one of "it will never be a problem." That whole y2k thing was a small example. It was put off until the last minute, only that putting off did not cause irrepairable damage.

Ever heard the term "superconsumers"? That is the term given to americans. As achebe was saying, we consume much more than the rest of the world. I literally spent one year researching environmental issues in '92 and that phrase appeared in US and international studies. Something like 80% of the world's consumable resources are consumed by the US. Do you see that as a problem?

It is all mindset. That is what I advocate abolishing most. Once people realize this is a global communinty, we are dealing with finite resources, etc. other things will follow. Of course, it usually takes a catastrophe for mindsets to change. Especially since the big car and energy companies will continue to use their propaganda -- also known as advertising/marketing. Look at how well it has worked for the tobacco industry.

------------------
Whitey will pay.

[Jeff]

Found this in the Chronicle today ironically...

Printer-friendly format
March 15, 2001, 10:40PM

Users have power to control energy
By THOM MARSHALL

So there I was sitting on the sofa reading the big story about how Reliant Energy is planning to hit us in our budgets again.

It'll be the third big haymaker in under a year. At the rate power costs are escalating, another couple of hits and maybe the easiest way to handle our bills will be to switch our paycheck direct-deposit instructions from the bank to Reliant.

Yes, the price of fuel that is burned to generate power has gone up, as we all know. And, as we all know, it is only sound business practice for the cost of the product to go up, too. No one wants the power company to go broke.

This is something to remember every time you drive past, or see on a TV screen, or read some reference to Reliant Astrodome. Reliant paid $300 million for the rights to name all facilities in the Astrodome complex.

It is something to remember when comparing HL&P rates for Houston customers ($98.26 per 1,000 kilowatt hours) to Southwestern Electric Power rates for customers in Texarkana, Marshall and Longview ($53.73 per 1,000 kilowatt hours).

It is something to remember when recalling those world-class fireworks shows that Reliant put on downtown. I don't believe anyone ever mentioned exactly how much the company spent on those impressive displays. Of course, if we had known when we were watching them that those skyrockets were symbols of Reliant's future pricing practices, we might not have enjoyed them as much.

The energy we purchase from Reliant subsidiary HL&P is expected to cost us about 30 percent more this summer than last, all other things being equal -- that is if our weather is just as hot and you want to stay just as cool.

It is too much. But it will be next year before anyone can buy power from any other company. And then only 5 percent of Reliant's customers will get to sign up for a pilot program to test how deregulation is going to work.

In the meantime, the way to spend less for electricity is simply to buy less of it. One way to do that is to make your own.

After one of the previous big rate jumps was announced, I called Mark Wiener of Southwest Photovoltaic Systems. After living and working many years in Texas, he moved to Tennessee, where he was building his energy-efficient, solar-powered dream house.

Its special features include a photovoltaic system on the roof. When that system is producing more electricity than he needs, he can send the extra to a power company for credit against the times he uses more than he produces. He had to get permission from the power company to do that in Tennessee, but in Texas, electricity customers have a legal right to do it.

Wiener estimated the retail cost for a battery-backed solar system, installed, would run you between $10,000 and $15,000. Prices for such equipment are coming down, he said, at the same time that electric company rates are going up, so it won't be long before it is cost effective to have such a system in Houston.

Another way to buy less electricity is to conserve. Insulation, attic fans, efficient lights and appliances are measures that come quickly to mind. And we use a huge amount of electricity for air conditioning, cooling the entire house with central air.

So I'm sitting on that sofa wondering if it would make more sense to go back to window units and cool only the rooms where we spend most of our time. Turn them off when no one is there to feel them.

I really wanted to discuss this rate hike with the other members of the family, let them know that we are going to be fighting back, solicit suggestions, issue instructions. But they all were out of town on a spring break trip.

Deciding to make some notes for when they got back, I got up for paper and pen. And that is when I noticed the lights.

I'd spent a good half-hour sitting on that sofa stewing about those three big rate hikes in less than a year, and about costs increasing by 30 percent this summer over last, and all that time I had left bulbs burning in four unoccupied rooms.

Old habits are not just hard to break, they can get expensive.

------------------
The Walrus was Paul.