GOP presidential candidate John McCain is finally starting to find his voice in the presidential race. After months of failing to take advantage of Barack Obama’s weaknesses as a candidate, McCain is now aggressively attacking his Democratic opponent.
In the past week, polls show that McCain’s new strategy is paying dividends. He is gaining ground on Obama. All of this points to serious problems for the Illinois Senator. Despite his much publicized trip to Europe and the Middle East, Obama lost ground against McCain. It seems Americans want their candidates to campaign here and not in Berlin.
McCain has released two commercials making fun of Obama, painting him as a celebrity and “The One.” The ads lampoon Obama’s seriousness and his star status. One of the spots links Obama to airhead celebrities like Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. Today, Paris Hilton struck back with her own spot, making fun of both candidates.
This turn in the campaign shows that McCain has started to gather some momentum. It shows that he is finally ready to portray Obama as a media creation. It also shows that the GOP campaign is ready to use humor in this presidential race. For example, Republican activists are now bringing tire gauges to Obama speeches making fun of his plan to conserve energy by calling on Americans to properly inflate their tires.
Congratulations to the Republicans and the McCain campaign for seizing the initiative and remaking the race. Obama is now on the defensive for the first time in this race. Once again, the presidential race is a toss-up.
For the next three months, Republicans need to keep pounding the issue of offshore drilling and remind voters that the two parties have very different positions. One exception for the Democrats is U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana who has established a very pro-drilling record. The majority of the Democrats are just plain wrong on this important issue. Recent polling shows that Americans are in line with the GOP on energy issues. 75% of Americans support drilling for oil and gas, 71% support offshore drilling, 56% support drilling in ANWR and 57% support more nuclear power. These results are tailor made for the Republican Party to launch a comeback in this race.
In contrast, Barack Obama wants to tax Exxon/Mobil and use those proceeds to give Americans a rebate. While demonizing “Big Oil” Obama conveniently forgets to tell Americans that Exxon/Mobil pays three times more in taxes than they made in profits last quarter. Big Oil is already taxed big time. Taxing them more will just hurt our energy industry, make this country more dependent on foreign oil, weaken our economy and lead to a loss of important jobs.
If this election centers on energy issues, McCain has a fighting chance to overcome the unpopularity of President Bush and the Republican Party and pull off a major upset this fall.
Jeff Crouere is a native of New Orleans, LA and he is the host of a Louisiana based program, “Ringside Politics,” which airs at 7:30 p.m. Fri. and 10:00 p.m. Sun. on WLAE-TV 32, a PBS station, and 7 till 11 a.m. weekdays on WGSO 990 AM in New Orleans and the Northshore. For more information, visit his web site at www.ringsidepolitics.com. E-mail him at jeff@ringsidepolitics.com
T-blub probably thinks all of the below was written by me...... Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! Written by
on 8/14/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
And one more point, Tee Nub - I understand why you look down on "C" students. That much intelligence begins to become dangerous for democrats. Without the D's, F's and dropouts, democratic candidates would be neck and neck with the green party in vote totals. (As obnoxious as those self-serving PhD's are, there aren't enough of them to elect anyone anywhere). Wonder how many (legitimate) honor students were registered to vote in the latest democratic voter registration drives? Written by
on 8/13/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Tee Nub, Don't touch the dirty money (and that includes tax revenue as well). Written by
on 8/13/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Was that succinctly enough for you T-duhb? Written by
on 8/12/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
So I take you are writing that you have the attention span of a geranium there TW????? Pity that….. And what a waste of Cranium space.......... Written by
on 8/12/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Didn't read that one, either. Got down to about "I frequent regions..." and got bored. Try to make your point more succinctly in future. Thank you! TW Written by Tee Dub
on 8/9/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Excellent observations there Jacob, and T-duhb, if you don’t read the ‘lengthy screeds’ associated with various Strongconcrete paradigms that are presented on this site, I would like to pose the question; “what qualifies you to crack wise ass style about them?????” Because obviously you are simply a bored whiner trying to establish or perpetuate some kind of pecing order……… Schadenfreude indeed……….. ‘The underclass that suffers the most?’ What do you know about ‘classes’ aside from the touchy feely dialogs and opinions you may experience from Dr. Phil, or Oprah, or some other rancid talk show host that are in essence only browbeating America to death……. They strive to correct nothing…… All they are interested in is Neilson ratings and their personal bank accounts…….. You talk smack about people who drive SUV’s etc…….. Well guess what sunshine, I frequent regions that if it isn’t an SUV, it is a dually, or a Dodge Powerwagon or some other similar transportation mode that is the vehicle of necessity…. Out in the mountains, out in the desert, on and around the numerous dirt roads of the farmlands that crisscross America…. Oh, I know, you have a neurosis about ‘Soccer Moms’ that drive SUV’s in the city. Well here is a little inside scooper there pooper……. They drive them because their children are safer while they navigate the crazy roads and highways with the equally crazy drivers they try to avoid an accident with as they try to bring their pride and joy in life to the various places they want to enjoy like soccer games, picnics, parks, museums, school, etc., etc., etc.. instead of sitting around cooped up watching Dr. Phil or Oprah or whatever in some couch potato based sterile environment….. And eventually becoming overweight and sickly looking terminal morons…. But enough of that………. The cap on FICA is fine…… And I do not know if you know what you meant when you wrote; “- - - It's a societal obligation, not a personal retirement account”…… but my take on that statement is it is the usual Democrat “try to bash someone that has a little more than you by reallocating their income and dispersing it to the ‘underclasses of society”. Social Security encompasses Medicare, disability insurance (SSI), and is intended in the end to be a supplemental resource to an established retirement fund each person should have on hand be it in the form of a 401K, stocks, bonds, savings, real estate, etc., etc.,,,,, It was never intended to be the sole source of financial support when a person gets too old or too sick to work……. And yes Jacob, I fully understand what you wrote down on this subject, and I share your concerns…… The anticipated Social Security insolvency issue can be addressed, adjusted, accommodated, and met in a very short time frame if National attention is directed towards this….. There are a number of methods to achieve this, I have a 5 point plan that should satisfy it……. But…………. We have jackasses for politicians that like to sit around and debate issues, and cause further issues rather than fixing the base root problems…….. Now if you want to deal with ‘economically challenged or under valuated’ segments of society there T-duhb instead of libeling them as being ‘underclass’ (That is so Carl Marx of you ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!!) I have viable contributions which can be made to curb some of the lack on that specific subject as well………. But that is a whole other sector of the potential Strongconcrete syndrome……… As for energy needs…….. Right now, immediately, Coal, Oil Shale development……. It is the fastest, and we have a lot of it………. The ‘grid’? That as well as our highways, rail, water, sewage, etc. has been and is of immediate concern…… Right now we have to summon up the intestinal fortitude to deal with those issues…….. Wind power? Well….. YES!…… Solar? Well……. YES! Additional offshore oil and gas development? Well…… YES! But that, much like wind and solar will require a decade or better to pump up into locomotive speed…….. Where will the money come from? By making domestic energy more readily available, and leveraging or reducing energy costs we can manufacture and export on a more competitive basis…… That is one apple in the tub……. And it will require multiple approaches for this type of an advent……. By focusing on our government expenditures and reducing costs involved…….. That is another apple in the tub……….. And there are many other factions that can come into play……. With each person doing their part either by physically conserving or physically contributing………….. I only have one thing to contribute……. That is STRONGCONCRETE…….. It has viable applications in every sector isolated and named in the above sentences as well as scores and scores of additional probabilities…….. But there are the T-duhhhhhhb’s of the world that have their obvious streaks of jealousy and are on a seemingly constant and derogatory mode…. Why I do not specifically know, but it is probably deeply rooted in something closely akin to angst and greed…. One way that ‘America’ can find additional money to cause preemptive implementations to be established in a more fluid fashion on many of the above concerns pondered by Jacob and others is through the advent and substantiation of STRONGCONCRETE directives……… There are several hundreds of millions of potential ‘saved’ dollars available to Louisiana posted on my website…… Now to take it a step farther, these types of conditions or situations can be extended to many problematic regions in the United States of America…. They not only save on initial costs, but reduce future costs that will be experienced as a result of atmospheric or hydrological generated calamities…. From the front door, to the back door, the house can be covered……… In reality, installation savings, and potential disaster costs combined, I am probably on a national scale speaking of a combined several hundred billions of dollars in savings on risk mediation/loss prevention within the next one or two decades……. In those theaters of participation STRONGCONCRETE intends to pretty much operate as a non-profit entity…… In other words, works and projects provided on an AT COST BASIS…….. For the establishment and or improvement upon civil works it will be qualified to conduct…….. No hidden agenda’s, no unseen manifestos such as those that Habitat for Humanity appears to harbor……… No political agendas intended to displace an established population in lieu for another………………………… But then again, I suppose that is a political agenda in their selves and very Un-Carl Marx of me……………………….. BFD to them and others like them that eat away at the core values of the United States I say!!!!! Right now, as of this moment, I am acutely aware as a result of previous conversations with valuation firms around the nation that upon the completion of ‘the first’ contract, my net worth would be appraised conservatively between 1 and 4 billion dollars…… That is a lot of leverage!!!!!!!! And I want to share that leverage power and their associated advantages with my neighbors both here in Louisiana and around the Nation…….. This in itself will be one small contribution, that when realized and added to other contributions others around the nation can make in their sectors of interests will help cause the United States to become re-empowered, and reinvigorated to successfully and profitably compete on a Global scale, no holds barred……………. More jobs, more security, a stable standard of living……… If the United States stumbles, so to will the hopes and aspirations of the various peoples for much valued democracy around the world. Without us, they all fail……… It is as simple as that…. Democracy often costs money, as well as blood, sweat and tears……. My understanding of money is; “If you don’t have it, it sometimes seems to be everything, and when you do have it, it’s not…………………..” So what do you want to do? Watch it all go up in flames? Or do you want to get on with another chapter in American prosperity??????? Written by
on 8/9/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Jacob, good points about the economic pain associated with high gas prices - it's the one thing that keeps me from having too much schadenfreude over people having to fuel their Yukons, etc. During tough economic times, it is always the underclass who suffer the most. As for Social Security, the fix is really simple - just eliminate the cap on FICA. It's a societal obligation, not a personal retirement account. As for power grid infrastructure, you know more about this than I do, but are you suggesting that the government provide tax incentives for this? And while you are critical of Obama's energy plan (or lack thereof), I wonder what McCain intends to do about this problem? (Perhaps you mentioned this during that long exchange with Concrete, which I do recall, although I doubt I read it carefully - I generally try to avoid reading Concrete's long screeds). Bottom line: it would surprise me if McCain had actually thought of this. I find him (McCain) generally uncompelling and intellectually disengaged. I think we've had one too many "C" students at the healm of our nation. TW Written by Tee Dub
on 8/9/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Tee Dub, I do not think anyone can deny that there are long-term economic problems with fossil fuels, as well as environmental ones to go along with them. But short-term costs are a more timely question than you might think, given that 2016 is generally regarded as the year when the "peak cycle" of baby boom retirement begins and the fiscal stresses that will be placed upon our national treasury will grow significantly. This is a real issue of social justice that should concern every American because the so-called "dependency ratio" (which is the ratio of employed workers to those they support in society) will worsen considerably. We could potentially see an entire generation impoverished just because their capacity for accumulating personal wealth will be denied to support the retirees whose claims upon our Social Security system must be met. It's not selfishness to think in terms of economics when discussing gas prices and their impact upon the cost of living for American families. Now on alternative energy development; we must have it. Period! The recent rise in oil prices means that it can be a cheaper alternative to the use of fossil fuels, which means that it can only make good economic sense -- and you can add in environmental sense too -- to develop its potential. But it's not such a simple thing to make it happen. Right now this nation lacks the technological infrastructure it needs to transport electrical power from areas in the South and Southwest where it can be produced by solar and wind power to the upper Midwest and Northeast where it is needed. StrongConcrete and I had a long discussion about this on another article on this site whose link I can no longer find. Put that infrastructure in place and it can happen. But where is the capital going to come from? If our economy does not grow at a rapid enough rate it will have to be taken from elsewhere and that means pain for someone -- and I'm talking jobs here, not wealth -- who already benefits from its interest. Where is the discussion about how this infrastructure is going to be developed in Obama's plan? It's not there, just a lot of rhetoric about moving beyond fossil fuels to a new future and all the other idealistic platitudes we can fit into one of his speeches. My criticism of Obama's energy plans are that they are economically unviable, socially unjust, and politically unwise for all of the above-stated reasons. It's not just about dollar signs. Written by Jacob Sulzbach, Lafayette, La.
on 8/8/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Poboy1, I remember Midwestern farm state senators and representatives touting it as the greatest thing since sliced bread - irrespective of party. Perhaps you could do a little research to back up your claim that ethanol was the exclusive brainchild of "Liberal Democrats" - I'm all ears. Of course, to you a liberal Democrat is anyone who is to the left of John Breaux, or perhaps, even he was "too liberal" for you, mein Führer? TW Written by Tee Dub
on 8/8/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
The Walker Ridge is simply ‘wonderful’……………….. As in BIG DEAL………………… At the current rate of 20 million barrels per day U.S. consumption, 15 billion barrels gives us around 750 days or a little more than 2 years of oil if it is solely singled out…… And then???????? So go ahead and drill, for all the difference it is really going to make in the long run………………………… As I said before, Louisiana’s ultimate value as a national ‘player’ dwindles day by day, barrel by barrel….. Now if the amount pumped on a daily basis is reduced, and the slack complimented by additional U.S. drilling, and exports cut to around 50% and steadily drop to a low of 25% with alternative fuels picking up the slack as they come on line, Louisiana’s viability can be extended for perhaps an additional 4 to 5 decades where oil is concerned…. LPG is another subject…….. Jacob, I realize the world will ‘howl’ if we pursue what I suggested, but guess what? I DON’T GIVE A RAT’S BUNGHOLE………….. They wouldn’t owe us anything if their leader Sadam had of left our ‘business partners’ in Kuwait alone in the first place……….. And he just had to keep going on and on and on…… So who’s opinion on this subject really matters anyways???? Does anyone remember 26 January 1991; Kuwait, off coast in the Persian Gulf near Saudi Arabia, 240 million gallons of oil/fuel Sadam had dumped??? Or how about the hundreds of rigs he had ‘lit up’? Sheesh, what a bunch of whiners……. Offshore assets around the United States can be brought on line as needed, and as quickly as lease options/programs are implemented, seismic is done, exploration is conducted, Offshore oil and gas platforms built, pipelines lain….. Yeah,,,,, 12 years to get up to speed….. O.K…………………….. fine, do it, but don’t count on it as the ‘big gun’……. We need to increase our strategic petroleum reserves 3 or 4 fold…….. And this with foreign exploration….. The only reasons we have ‘offshore’ reserves here in the United States to haggle over right now in the first place is directly due to the conservation measures that we as a nation have been abiding by over the course of the past 3 decades………. Call them a ban or whatever; they have served their purpose well…. Prudence…… Deploy prudence and rational thought processes when it comes time for development and utilization of future resources……. Our biggest problem is China…. They have zip for oil and gas, although I strongly suspect that the China Sea is loaded with oil, and they are playing the same conservation game we played opting to use up the worlds stock before tapping into theirs… India/Pakistan – and (oh shudder) familiar grounds over there will become volatile hotspots requiring a great deal of our ‘military’ presence…….. And the Russian oil and gas fields will be equally susceptible to Chinese interest…….. Now the fastest medium to put on line is our coal/shale oil deposits….. 36 months and a great improvement in energy production can be accomplished through these two resources………… Wind and solar is extremely viable, and very expensive to nurture…. It will never replace the output of coal and oil in today’s terms, or in future terms if population values remain or continue on the current or future trends anticipated… (you can read that one between the lines all you want, they are the simple facts). And that is perhaps our second biggest problem….. Now, as far as the world’s oceans dying??? Well, sadly, yes they most definitely are…. And only an ignorant fool would try to claim otherwise….. They are overfished, and over polluted… Those are the sad and simple facts of the matter…… Ask anyone who wants to fish for anchovies off the coast of Monterey Bay in California, or even harvest oysters in a bay called Chesapeake…. Ethanol production? Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!!! Food prices up, or food prices down, it doesn’t matter, but the facts are it takes a little over the same amount of energy in to produce ethanol as the energy the end product produces….. That is called a static condition….. the subject of Cellulose fiber is interesting, but then again, so are tractor beams on the Starship Enterprise… Where electrical generation is to be concerned, I believe from a conservation standpoint the utilization of coal (or nuclear) over gas fired plants should be evaluated especially when it is considered that the LPG may serve a better purpose in the fertilizer/plastics sector of industry……… Oh well, the hell with OBAMA, and I hope McCain doesn’t turn out to be just another complacent pain…. I think he will do the right things, hopefully, but they again that is what everyone seemed to be trying to tell me about Piyush and I ain’t seen no genius coming out of him yet………………………………………………. Written by
on 8/8/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Tee Dub. What a selective memory. You don't know ANY left wingers that think growing corn for ethanol was a good idea? How did you miss the endless parade of liberal Democrat talking heads rushing to every microphone they could find to tout corn into ethanol as the greatest thing since sliced bread and the ultimate answer to our energy "crisis"? Only when the facts came out about how it would raise food prices and hurt the "poor" did they change their tune. OOPS! Don't give me any crap about how liberals believe "money is not the be-all and end-all of our existence". Liberals know plenty about making money and are very good at spending it,especially other peoples money.The hyprocrisy continues to astound! Written by Poboy1
on 8/8/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
I think the biggest problem is that we "left-wingers" think money is not the end-all and be-all of our existence on this planet, and that maximizing things other than profits is sometimes desirable. "Right-wingers" put a dollar sign on everything. And please don't write that I'm not a "grownup" for saying that - think about it - are there not things that are more important than money? In the end, in order to appease you all, we left-wingers tend to make arguments in economic terms. Now for the record, I think Richard P. and I are right about the long-term economics of dwindling fossil fuel supplies, global warming, and alternative fuels, but I sometimes wish every argument were not mandated to be an economic one. And as for Poboy1, I don't know any "left-wing" folks who think that raising corn for ethanol production is a wise decision. It is super-expensive and leads to higher food prices and lower food availability. You are so reflexively anti-left-wing that you check your brain at the door before you write. TW Written by Tee Dub
on 8/8/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Why can't we do both? Drill, conserve and go alternate. If the government(Democrats)would lift the moratorium on offshore drilling the free market will take over and supply will increase.The majority of Americans are in favor of this.Jobs anyone. In the meantime the transition to renewable energy sources will take place.However, some of the "green" alternative fuel solutions are uneconomical, speculative technology far more expensive than the cost associated with extracting more oil and gas.T Boone Pickens windmills are great as long as the wind is blowing; but how expensive will it be to store and transfer the generated energy? How much will a pork chop cost when most of the land is producing corn for fuel? Obama was adamately opposed to new offshore drilling but now says he would accept a highly restricted version as part of a comprehensive package?(flip flop!) Really. Where are the details? I guess we will get them in the debates.Stop the "chicken little" hysteria. 15 years ago we were told we had a decade to "save the oceans" from becoming dead zones that would ultimately destroy the planet.From where did we get this dire prediction? From actor Ted Danson and the rest of the left wing crazies that's where.The capatilists,free market system will save America again if we just get government out of the way and let it work. Written by poboy1
on 8/8/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Richard P., I think you missed the discussion about developing wind energy offshore in Louisiana's Gulf of Mexico waters. We "right wingers" are thinking ahead more than you think. But that won't happen under Obama either, because his taxes will dry up investment capital and leave the infrastructural development that is necessary to make alternative energy a reality unaddressed. You may also have missed the discussion about the Walker Ridge field in Louisiana's offshore waters too. It's already producing and they're loading the oil on tankers, but it will not be until 2010 until pipelines bring the field fully online. It may contain up to 15 billion barrels of crude reserves, possibly the largest American find since Alaska's Prudhoe Bay in the 1970's. Obama's supporters want to fight straw men in the energy debate because they have nothing to offer in the way of sound proposals. Obama's propositions will not halt the rise in gasoline prices, they will not permit investment capital necessary to fund alternative energy development to form, and they will not protect the American family from descending into a reduced standard of living due to high energy costs. But they will still have "right wingers" to blame for the country's difficulties then, so it'll be alright. Written by Jacob Sulzbach, Lafayette, La.
on 8/8/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
I see that the right wingers still want to keep their eyes closed to realities that if drilling in places heretofore off-limits is allowed McCain will be long gone from the scene by the time any effect would be felt at all at the pumps by the consumer, if indeed there'll be any effect, which itself is not certain by any means. I myself have no problem that if a particular state wants to allow drilling they should get the say-so but anyone who can't or won't start to get it that the time to start weaning the country off fossil fuels is right now is plainly ignorant or stupid. Written by Richard P.
on 8/7/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Well I hope you are right about the possibility of an impending decline in the price of oil, but I consider that to be a highly-speculative gambit at the moment. But since I do believe oil is overpriced it would make sense to me that the price would drop, but I really do not believe it will reach $80 per barrel though I would love to be proven wrong on that count. On shale oil, it's unbelievable what Marathon is producing out of the Bakken oil shale in western North Dakota and adjacent areas. We even have some offshore oil shales that are being reexamined right now for possible re-development as a result. On the Iraqi oil profits, I agree with you, but can you imagine the howl that would ensue from their use by the U.S. for its domestic purposes? I believe our investment in Iraqi economic development justifies taking such action, but doing so will produce an overwhelmingly negative public reaction that will not be conducive to progress. On coal gasification, I have two links for you from the DOE. 1) A DOE overview of coal gasification using examples of plants in Indiana and Florida at: http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/gasification/gasificationpioneer.html and 2) A recent report on the revenues returned to the DOE from the Beulah, North Dakota gasification plant -- which is now considered a near miracle given what I saw on the History channel's "Modern Marvels" series as it has become a zero-emissions facility: http://www.fe.doe.gov/news/techlines/2006/06025-Dakota_Gasification_Revenue_Sharin.html And with regard to energy and "the future" let me say that we are playing russian roulette to allow people who do not understand technology -- and who frankly hate it -- to set our energy agenda. I'm really fearful of the possibilities. Written by Jacob Sulzbach, Lafayette, La.
on 8/7/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Jacob, those are valid points, but I do believe for some reason or other oil will be below the 80? dollar per barrel range sometime around October…. This in itself, aside from temporary lowering of fuel costs is meaningless……… I sort of expect it to take back off into the 100+ dollar per barrel price range sometime after next February or March in anticipation of 1st quarter closes……… One aspect of this per barrel cost is it could make the investment on the parts of ‘turnkey’ operators to get into well stimulation either through acid cracking or other processes…… Those older wells that were deemed less than productive to justify work over and were simply capped or abandoned but they do have a profitable percentage that can be recovered under the right economic conditions….. I would suppose this would only add a half or so percent to our requirements, but a half percent recovered is a half a percent earned….. Where ‘shale oil’ is concerned, this looks VERY promising…… These deposits that lay in the Dakota’s, Wyoming, Colorado can be rapidly mined…….. And there is adequate ‘flat’ rail on this side of the Continental divide that would avail transport for processing to any number of locations in New Mexico, Arizona, Southern California, Nevada….. I am speaking of setting up solar farms in areas such as akali flats, and salt flats or out and out deserts such as Death Valley or the Mojave etc... that could produce the thermal coefficient parameters necessary to ‘cook’ these shale’s causing them to surrender the oil they contain…….. Investment capital???? One form of ‘fluid’ currency currently sits in the Federal Treasury….. It is profits from oil that Iraq has accrued over the past 3 years…… That is OUR capital………… The DoE can take control of these funds, and in ‘joint venture’ with any one or number of the commercial ‘majors’ (as well as some federal agencies) initiate steps necessary to cause this to come about…. It is a matter of national security……….. Right now gasoline can be bought for around, I heard, .25 to .35 cents or so per gallon in Iraq…. WHY????? To circumvent drawing from the strategic reserves for home heating purposes in the North this winter I would suggest trading rice, soybeans, corn to whoever it is that is supplying LPG for $2.00 or so per mcf to China and Russia….. I think per bushel value is around $8.00 plus, not going to bother looking it up, not my department……… But LPG costs for some crazy reason, as reported by a Congressional Rep from Pennsylvania is expected to go from the current $12.00 or so per mcf to around 18 or better by November……. Wind energy is important, but coal is our second greatest resource……….. And any plant currently utilizing LPG needs to be switched over to coal, I do not know where "integrated gasification combined cycle" processes technology stands, but it should be put into hyper drive for dispatch…. I am under the impression it greatly reduces a lot of the problems associated with burning coal, and I am also under the impression we here in the United States enjoy some of the ‘cleanest’ coal deposits on the globe…… Or maybe I am wrong, again, not my department…… Anyways…….. Between Shale Oil, and Coal we have the most rapid resources there are to develop, refine, and distribute…….. Solar, wind, and geothermal should be capitalized upon as well……… I am not too sure of the role Nuclear will play.... The tricky part is the fusion/fission gauntlet and the costs involved on a variety of levels..... Global warming? May as well get used to it…… If man is that big of a role player in this event, well then it is not until population values decline will mankind’s part in this phenomena’s matrix be reduced….. Simple as that….. Now we stumble on Geo politics, it is not a very bright outlook……… So what it really boils down to is what are our plans, and where do we envision our grandchildren (the nation as a whole) and under what conditions in the upcoming decades? Because as for me, I only have 20 to 30 years so I don’t believe I will be living under the inevitable Blade runner or Soylent Green conditions that are expected at the rate we are going for too long….. So really, it isn’t about us, it’s about the future us’s…….. Written by
on 8/7/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Obama's energy policy is not merely weak, it's non-existent in so far as it attempts to deal with the issue Americans care about most, the price of gasoline at the pump. Any economist can tell you that the overall form of a solution to this structural weakness in the American economy is to increase supply and/or lower demand for the commodity -- which in this case is oil. Obama's proposals will do neither. Increasing supply means encouraging oil production here in the U.S. and the opportunities to do so are quite real, and they involve more than just the expansion of offshore drilling -- where the big payoff lies -- and ANWR, both of which Obama opposes. There are literally hundreds of older oil fields whose returns played out decades ago, when accessed with technologies that were far less efficient in producing returns than what oil companies have at their disposal today, which now offer new opportunities for reentry and profitable production through optimized drilling and recovery. ( See http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/05/business/05oil1.html for an introduction. ) McCain sees some of this and recognizes that it will have to be the smaller companies who take these risks, since the major oil companies look for the big payoffs and are investing in very large-scale operations instead. McCain's proposal for lowering corporate income taxes will, when applied to companies preparing to risk their investment capital in such recovery drilling ventures, enhance the profitability of such enterprise and encourage production. Obama's proposal for a windfall profits tax on oil companies will do just the opposite, it will for all practical purposes bring such optimized drilling and recovery production to an end and, along with its corresponding negative impact upon new offshore drilling, that can only have the effect of lowering supply and raising oil prices, which will mean higher gasoline prices at the pump. With respect to lowering demand for oil, the major effort needs to be focused upon converting as much commercial and industrial use of oil to alternative fuels and alternative sources of electrical power (where oil is used to produce electricity). At first glance it would appear that Obama's promotion of alternative energy development would move the country in that direction, but there is something vital which is missing from the plan -- a source of investment capital. The levels of business investment that will be required to make this conversion are sizeable and they will not be present if Obama's tax plans are passed, which a largely Democratic-controlled Congress will most certainly pass. Obama's energy proposals will lower the supply of oil and do very little to lower demand for it as well. The American family will be in for a terrible awakening to the reality of continually-rising gasoline prices as a result under an Obama presidency. The only ones who will be satisfied are the global warming cult, who will in fact set our national energy policy. Written by Jacob Sulzbach, Lafayette, La.
on 8/7/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
I do not disagree with conservation or alternative sources of energy - however I seriously doubt we'll be "weaned" from hydrocarbon fuels in fifty years from now, let alone ten. It may be scarcer and more expensive (market forces just "are" - they exist outside of governmental regulation) but we'll be using fossil fuels long after all of us alive today are forgotten even by our successors. In our "global" economy - if we are to compete - we will have to use energy that costs no more than that used by our competition. Hydrocarbon and nuclear-fueled power plants will be around for a long time. The "oil" companies do not plan on going out of business when hydrocarbon fuels "dry up" - they are already placing themselves in position to DOMINATE the market in alternative fuels (didja think it would be some hippy commune providing this? Get real.) and they will provide it, as soon as these alternative fuels are practical. I worry when I hear some "greenie" claim that the government (uh... that is ....taxpayers) should bear the burden of funding the cost for these "power providers" (a.k.a. "oil companies") alternative fuel research and development. That just sounds like more corporate welfare to me; I’m sure the oil companies would love to have the taxpayer pay for the R&D so they can spare that cost themselves. Written by kpf
on 8/7/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
One thing that someone needs to note is that petroleum is a finite resource. We will run out, it's just a question of when. So we had best start looking into alternatives now (preferably clean ones for obvious reasons). And thanks to Richard P. for pointing out the problems with expecting "the market" to solve our problems. That Pollyanna view of market forces has been foisted on us for far too long in this country. The market is short-term and myopic and the problems we face are long-term and involve up-front costs that few capitalists are going to be brave enough to front (kudos to T. Boone Pickens for putting his money where his mouth is in that regard). TW Written by Tee Dub
on 8/7/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
10 years from now is the whole point. By that time we need to be seriously working to be weaning the nation away from fossil fuels, thus what's the point of extra oil from these places at that time? The whole point is that fossil fuels are going to run out, period. Do want this to be very painful with the economy being destroyed or do we want to be able to make a transition? One candidate has a real plan for an energy transition and it isn't McCain. Written by Richard P.
on 8/7/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Actually McCain has been the flip-flopper as he's been discarding his previous likeable moderate independent self and pandering shamelessly to the right wing crowd. As for believing in the market to solve the problem of finding new energy sources and in helping to conserve, that's all fine but while the market is usually a good mechanism the lots of times the market is far from a perfect mechanism and it's often an uneven mechanism. The big oil companies are looking out for their own interests, the car makers are looking out for their own interests and so on. Conservation and finding new energy sources is a very urgent situation. We don't look to the market to address terrorism and defense. We didn't look to the market alone when we had the goal of getting to the moon. We need bona fide national leadership with a plan to get everyone's attention, make it a national goal and get the nation on the right track on this and make it in everyone's interest to conserve and have a plan to adapt or else the whole economy will essentially grind to a halt. We really don't have the luxury of time on this. Written by Richard P.
on 8/7/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
I agree we must do more to reduce the amount of fossil fuels we use, however the fact that it takes 7 to 10 years to get production from deep water or the artic areas does not mean "don't do it." The volumes are huge and the benefits will be real, the sooner we start the sooner we'll reap the benefit. This is similar to adopting a healthy lifestyle. It make take years before your lungs are clear and you are at your most healthy weight, but just because the benefits take time to manifest one should not come to the conclusion it should not be done at all. This applies to nuclear power plants and refineries as well – we need them – it will takes a decade or so to get benefit from them – so start building them now. Wind power is not going to provide affordable energy in any sufficient quantity that will allow us to maintain our desired lifestyle. If it would one can be sure Exxon, Shell, etc. would be building wind turbines to corner as much of this market as they could. Written by kpf
on 8/7/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Voters are wary of Obama because he has flip-flopped on several positions and has had to distance himself from so many radical supporters that voters have lost count. Thus, the slim (if any) lead in the polls. As the election nears more voters will start paying attention to the clear differences on most issues between Obama and McCain. What a shame that both parties are playing politics with the energy/oil/green issue. The American people have been bombarded with so many theories,opinions,so called solutions,"facts",charts,graphs,models and speculation,that they are simply confused about the whole issue. No clear thinking person who has been watching American politics for any length of time really believes that politicians have any answers anyway. It will take American ingenuity and the free market to solve the crisis. Government and whomever is president should just stay out of the way. Written by poboy1
on 8/7/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Actually, most experts agree that no matter how quickly we start drilling in these domestic places where drilling has not been allowed it would take years, as in possibly decades, before there would any effect, if any effect at all, felt by consumers, especially considering that the price of oil is determined by the global market as a whole. The basic truth is quite simply that there has got to be conservation as well as development of new energy sources. Moreover, this is not a "sometime in the future" issue; it's very now a "right now" situation which should be viewed with the same urgency as the issues of terrorism, crime, or corruption or anything else that merits very serious concern and right-now action. Between Obama and McCain one of them does have an actual plan for the future beyond just this discussion about drilling in heretofore off-limits places and it isn't McCain. McCain has been a honorable guy in the past but it's amazing how the McCain of 2000 has disappeared. One has to suspect that he's changed his philosophy from "would rather be right than be president" to "wants to be president no matter what...." Written by Richard P.
on 8/6/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
The simple truth is that we will need oil for decades. All this talk of green energy is just that. Using a food crop to fuel our cars was a shortsighted solution that already is causing great pain for those least able to afford it. I am for the "all the above" strategy. We need our domestic oil. When you sit down and list the products made from petroleum, you begin to get a picture of just how much our lives would change without it. Someone pointed out today that it take 8 gallons of oil to produce one tire. Those green cars are going to need tires, aren't they. Obama said in a speech that we can save as much oil as we would get out of ANWR by inflating our tires properly and getting tune ups. If he believes that, he really is out of touch. Anyone get a tune up lately. Good points, Jeff. Written by Sharon
on 8/6/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
I think you are overinflating McCain's tires Jeff. Written by David Quidd
on 8/6/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
I don't know where the "recent pollilng" data you indicate comes from, but if it is accurate it shows that many Americans want to be "green" WITH affordable energy. Written by kpf
on 8/6/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
