The best energy policy ever

[natedogg]

I'm nauseated by the "if kerry.." thread. Many posters enthusiastically calling for massive government funding and appropriation for an "appollo program of alternative energy".

Of course this would be a complete disaster and anyone who knows anything about how our government works and how economies work should know this (no, the real Appollo program is not a good example because it was not competing with private enterprise moon missions. Government can be adequate with endeavors that have no free market incentive, such as useless ego-boosting moon-missions ).

We have the best possible energy policy going RIGHT NOW! It's called high oil prices.

Mucking around with the oil economy is the height of folly. Don't get me wrong, it's already seriously mucked around with, I understand that. But the answer to a problem created by governemtn is not "more government".

We have the best possible energy policy going. High oil prices have spurred private research and investment to record highs. Only a moron could think that was a coincidence and only a naive fool could possibly think that a small group of elite purse-holder is capable of directing that capital and human energy more effectively.

natedogg

[etgryphon]

I have been saying this same thing...

These high oil prices could be the absolute best environmental windfall ever. This is a blessing in disguise.

-Gryph

[Jedster]

Part of the reason that prices are going up is increased consumption in China and India. Given that the overal global consumption is a bigger issue for the environment, I'm not as sanguine as you two.

Anyway, although I understand that you guys are happy to let our economy take a nosedive to save the environment, I'm not as thrilled about the prospect. (If you don't think higher energy prices impact the economy, well, then don't bother reading this.)

Another downside of our current energy situation is a reliance on the Middle East. (If you think that relying on Saudi Arabia for our energy is a good idea, don't bother reading this.)

We need to work on every front imaginable to improve our energy situation:

- Support Canada's efforts to extract oil from previously difficult land which will prove to be the world's largest oil reserves

- Invest in coal-to-liquid fuel technologies

- Invest in figuring out how to safely dispose of nuclear materials so we can use nuclear power

- Improve efficiency in cars and other energy consuming devices

The free market does a lot of good things, but it didn't build the interstate highway system.

[theweatherman]

Those ar ethe most unimaginative ideas ive ever heard. All except one use some sort of oil/coal derivative, and the other is nuclear energy! Bah.

Join the 21st century where things like hydrogen, solar and wind power are ripe for the picking. Even better right here in the good old USA!! Why bother with any forgien energy source when we could put off shore wind turbines, or solar powered electrolosis plants to produce H2?

[Jedster]

I totally agree but the things i mention would be an improvement over bush's current approach, which show just how dumb and incompetent he is. Or evil. I'm not sure which.

[ QUOTE ]
- Improve efficiency in cars and other energy consuming devices

[/ QUOTE ]
Take a look at Toyota's stock over the last several months. Efficient cars are thriving. The market responded to the need.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
- Support Canada's efforts to extract oil from previously difficult land which will prove to be the world's largest oil reserves

[/ QUOTE ]

Subsidize Canadian oil production but not U.S. production? Interesting. Maybe you support the subsidies of U.S. oil production too but just didn't mention it and I assume you meant subsidies when you use the word support.



[ QUOTE ]
Invest in coal-to-liquid fuel technologies

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you mean by "invest" here. Government sponsored research????

[ QUOTE ]
- Invest in figuring out how to safely dispose of nuclear materials so we can use nuclear power

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on what you mean by safe. We can dispose of things like plutonium "safely" now (according to government) but there's problems with that. Nobody wants it in their neigborhood now so to speak. Considering the toxicity of plutonium and it's half life it's understandable.

[ QUOTE ]
- Improve efficiency in cars and other energy consuming devices

[/ QUOTE ]

This will make the U.S. more dependent on imported oil since OPEC producers are basically the lowest cost producers. I support higher fuel effeciency in automobiles which will help bring down the cost of oil (hopefully) by reducing demand but this will eliminate marginally profitable producers. Domestic oil production costs are way more than Saudi production costs.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]

We need to work on every front imaginable to improve our energy situation:

- Support Canada's efforts to extract oil from previously difficult land which will prove to be the world's largest oil reserves

- Invest in coal-to-liquid fuel technologies

- Invest in figuring out how to safely dispose of nuclear materials so we can use nuclear power

- Improve efficiency in cars and other energy consuming devices


[/ QUOTE ]

"We" are doing all that right now. The investment and advances in all these things you listed is at record highs.

[ QUOTE ]

The free market does a lot of good things, but it didn't build the interstate highway system.

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement relies on a fallacy. It implies that if something happened due to central planning of a government policy, then it couldn't have happened otherwise. That is certainly not true. It *may* be true that certain things couldn't have happened without a government program (Apollo missions are a good example).

Yet all too the often the mere fact that something was built with govt money is taken as proof that it (or a reasonable alternative) never could have happened otherwise. This reasoning is applied to all manner of govt endeavors, not just things like roads and technology. And I must repeat, that reasoning is utterly fallacious.

natedogg

[Jedster]

You raise an interesting point (about the highways). Can you name a similar type of major national system that has developed without governmental support? Obviously I can think of some things that have, like the internet (didn't Al Gore create that or something?). I'm not being argumentative here, I'm curious.

[wacki]

The internet wouldn't be where it is today w/o the aid of darpa. I really doubt we would even be using it right now.