Seeuski, I am happy to see that you have the same goal in mind that I do: An energy independent USA with a thriving economy; and I'm equally glad that you realize transitioning to alternative energy technologies is the way to get there (yikes, that is a little weird!). I also agree that we need to continue to responsibly develop our domestic oil and gas resources. However, we need to put in place some market signals that moves us in that direction faster than we are now. Innovators and manufacturers of alternative energy technologies need the confidence and certainty to be able to invest in these technologies. Of course you know oil and gas companies already get huge subsidies. All we're asking for is an even playing field.
America uses 25% of the world's energy and holds 2% of the world's oil. How does drilling more oil wells get us where we need to go? This only furthers our dependence on foreign oil. We need to get off that dependence ASAP. Last thing on this topic: If you also want to eventually see an America free of Middle East oil, how do you propose we get there?
Finally, on your EPA climate change CBS article: If the Obama administration did bury this report, that angers me. It would not only make him as bad as Bush as far as ignoring science, but it would also make him a hypocrite. I don't even care if the guy is an economist and doesn't know what he's talking about. The report should be shared with the scientific community, and if he is a fraud, he should be publicly embarrassed. Let the experts discredit it if it's false. He might be raising many of the arguments that have already been discredited, but we won't know until we see the report. I don't think the science on climate change is completely settled. Let me clarify: I think the notion that humans are affecting global climate is a slam dunk, but what we don't know too well yet is what exactly will happen in the future (climatology is extremely complex). There is a lot more research to be done and there's never anything wrong with a scientific discussion.
If my references are "just one side of the opinions" on climate change, which are the credible scientific organizations that make up the other side? Please provide them for me. I don't care what right-wing think tanks say, I don't even care what Al Gore says. When it comes to climate change, the only credible voices are climate scientists.
The organizations I listed are the first and foremost in climate science. Are you and seeuski saying they're intentionally misrepresenting science? See, to suggest that somehow there is a grand conspiracy in the scientific community to misrepresent human's role in climate change is ludicrous. That would be a conspiracy that makes the 9/11 inside job conspiracy child's play in comparison. Wow, they even got to organizations in Australia and Africa-what a wide-ranging conspiracy! Plus, a scientific conspiracy of this magnitude is not only impractical, it's impossible. "Junk" science and any incorrect assertions are taken care of through the scientific method. The scientific method was designed specifically to disprove assertions (hypotheses). So far, there literally thousands of peer-reviewed papers supporting anthropogenic climate change. I'm waiting for you to just show me one study that proves this hypothesis to be false.
I am fully in favor of developing our own oil and gas resources in America, as long as it's done right. So is Obama. Tell me what he's done to stop this development. Putting alternatives on equal footing with fossil fuels is not curtailing oil and gas development. We are still drilling for oil and gas, and we will continue to do so under this policy.
I called your question about green jobs "silly" simply because you are maintaining that there should be millions of green jobs already, while the market has been rigged in favor of oil jobs for years. Just wait a few years and you'll see those green jobs.
You guys know we've already done the cap and trade thing for acid deposition, don't you? Did that spell the death of the US economy as we know it?
Fred, you must not be aware of this climate change legislation.
The House-passed bill contains provisions to make it easier to get loan guarantees and expands the nuclear industry's access to loans for reactor construction, a big problem for that industry. An Environmental Protection Agency analysis that shows modest future costs from a low-climate energy world assumes a significant expansion of nuclear energy. Plus, nuclear power would benefit greatly from a cap-and-trade system because the technology does not emit carbon dioxide. The Senate could add more incentives for the nuclear industry.
Some "loons" might not want nuclear, but obviously the liberals that matter (the policy makers) understand its importance. We're going to need EVERY kind of energy in a post peak oil world.
Finally, let's talk climate change. Here's a list of 28 scientific organizations concurring with anthropogenic climate change: 1. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 2. Joint science academies' statement 2007 3. Joint science academies' statement 2005 4. Joint science academies' statement 2001 5. Network of African Science Academies 6. U.S. National Research Council, 2001 7. American Meteorological Society 8. Royal Meteorological Society (UK) 9. World Meteorological Organization (WMO) 10. American Geophysical Union 11. American Institute of Physics 12. American Astronomical Society 13. American Physical Society 14. Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006 15. National Center for Atmospheric Research 16. American Association for the Advancement of Science 17. Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London 18. American Quaternary Association 19. Geological Society of America 20. American Chemical Society 21. Federation of American Scientists 22. Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia) 23. Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society 24. The Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society 25. European Geosciences Union 26. International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics 27. International Union of Geological Sciences 28. International Council for Science
I would like to know who you would have us believe if it's not these organizations. What science are we to believe besides the thousands of studies published concurring with these conclusions? Let's see, should I trust the American Institute of Physics, or some dude that calls himself 'popcan' on the Steamboat Pilot forum?
Europe has made significant strides is reducing their dependence on oil by using similar measures. Europeans' per capital oil use is much much lower than ours. We use 68.672 bbl/day per 1,000 people. The UK uses less than half that, 29.008 bbl/day per 1,000 people. That's very substantial. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene...
Reducing our use of oil isn't only important for our environment. It's critical for our economy. There's absolutely no question which direction energy is moving in the world right now. The question is do we want to lead, or do we want all our alternative energy innovators to move their companies to Germany instead of making money for America. We're better off shifting jobs gradually now than a more drastic decline of the oil industry.
Hey popcan, I'll answer your silly question. Why aren't there more green jobs?
Because 85% of our energy comes from fossil fuels.
You must be confused. That's exactly what this bill is trying to change. You don't see effects of policy before it is instated.
I don't like that this bill could push production to China where there are no similar measures. We won't make much of a dent in world carbon emissions. However, we need to do SOMETHING to curb our use of oil. If they added a tariff on imported good that used fossil fuels, that might do the trick. We also need a gradual gasoline tax.
"I have been an oilman for 50 years, so it may seem odd for me to predict that our days of pumping gas into our cars is over. Here's the problem with oil: The world currently produces 85 million barrels daily. Production volume will not rise. Yet as third world countries become greater consumers of oil, the resource will become more valuable. I predict that by the end of this year the price of a barrel of oil will rise to $75. In three years it'll be back up to $150. In 10 years, if America has done nothing to cut our dependence on oil, we'll be importing 70 percent of our oil and paying $300 a barrel for it. We had better do something about it before we have a disaster on our hands." --T. Boone Pickens
History will look back on any legislation to create market signals to push us towards alternative energy sources as a huge positive step for America.
The politicians aren't the problem. As long as money talks in Washington, it doesn't matter who you vote out. Let's see if FreedomWorks and its billionaire right-wing backers support no more private campaign contributions. Yeah, right.
seeyski, you are quoting conservative think tanks. Of course they're going to blame the Dems and poor minorities. Your points only show that ALL politicians were involved in deregulation. Nice plug for McCain. What to take a look at all the deregulation he supported? Care to talk about all the deregulation supported by the GOP?
By the way, I'm glad I got a conservative to admit deregulation and lack of oversight was a major factor in this crisis.
As we've said before, there are/were many to blame for this crisis, and almost everyone disagrees who owns the most blame. But absolving the companies themselves, and/or trying to pin all this on the Dems is rediculous. And you know it.
seeuski, what are you "redlining laws" are you referring to that forced banks to make marginal loans? Are you referring to the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) passed under Carter and amended in the 90s that required some banks to loan to minorities? Although this might have been a contributing factor, it was in no way a major factor in the bank collapse.
The CRA applies to depository banks. But many of the institutions that spurred the massive growth of the subprime market weren't regulated banks. They were outfits such as Argent and American Home Mortgage, which were generally not regulated by the Federal Reserve or other entities that monitored compliance with CRA. These institutions worked hand in glove with Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, entities to which the CRA likewise didn't apply.
Plus, the CRA didn't force mortgage companies to offer loans for no money down, or to throw underwriting standards out the window, or to encourage mortgage brokers to aggressively seek out new markets. Nor did the CRA force the credit-rating agencies to slap high-grade ratings on packages of subprime debt.
Additionally, lending money to poor people and minorities isn't inherently risky. There's plenty of evidence that in fact it's not that risky at all. That's what we've learned from several decades of microlending programs, at home and abroad, with their very high repayment rates. And as the New York Times recently reported, Nehemiah Homes, a long-running initiative to build homes and sell them to the working poor in subprime areas of New York's outer boroughs, has a repayment rate that lenders in Greenwich, Conn., would envy. In 27 years, there have been fewer than 10 defaults on the project's 3,900 homes. That's a rate of 0.25 percent.
Dumb lending originated in Greenwich, Conn., midtown Manhattan, and Southern California, not Eastchester, Brownsville, and Washington, D.C. Investment banks created a demand for subprime loans because they saw it as a new asset class that they could dominate. They made subprime loans for the same reason they made other loans: They could get paid for making the loans, for turning them into securities, and for trading them-frequently using borrowed capital.
CRA and loaning to minorities are not responsible for the supremely poor decision-making seen in the financial system. Much of this crisis lies directly on the banks and their risky behavior.
Soren Jesperson: Act now against warming
Seeuski, I am happy to see that you have the same goal in mind that I do: An energy independent USA with a thriving economy; and I'm equally glad that you realize transitioning to alternative energy technologies is the way to get there (yikes, that is a little weird!). I also agree that we need to continue to responsibly develop our domestic oil and gas resources. However, we need to put in place some market signals that moves us in that direction faster than we are now. Innovators and manufacturers of alternative energy technologies need the confidence and certainty to be able to invest in these technologies. Of course you know oil and gas companies already get huge subsidies. All we're asking for is an even playing field.
America uses 25% of the world's energy and holds 2% of the world's oil. How does drilling more oil wells get us where we need to go? This only furthers our dependence on foreign oil. We need to get off that dependence ASAP. Last thing on this topic: If you also want to eventually see an America free of Middle East oil, how do you propose we get there?
Finally, on your EPA climate change CBS article: If the Obama administration did bury this report, that angers me. It would not only make him as bad as Bush as far as ignoring science, but it would also make him a hypocrite. I don't even care if the guy is an economist and doesn't know what he's talking about. The report should be shared with the scientific community, and if he is a fraud, he should be publicly embarrassed. Let the experts discredit it if it's false. He might be raising many of the arguments that have already been discredited, but we won't know until we see the report. I don't think the science on climate change is completely settled. Let me clarify: I think the notion that humans are affecting global climate is a slam dunk, but what we don't know too well yet is what exactly will happen in the future (climatology is extremely complex). There is a lot more research to be done and there's never anything wrong with a scientific discussion.
June 30, 2009 at 7:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Soren Jesperson: Act now against warming
Popcan, you first.
If my references are "just one side of the opinions" on climate change, which are the credible scientific organizations that make up the other side? Please provide them for me. I don't care what right-wing think tanks say, I don't even care what Al Gore says. When it comes to climate change, the only credible voices are climate scientists.
The organizations I listed are the first and foremost in climate science. Are you and seeuski saying they're intentionally misrepresenting science? See, to suggest that somehow there is a grand conspiracy in the scientific community to misrepresent human's role in climate change is ludicrous. That would be a conspiracy that makes the 9/11 inside job conspiracy child's play in comparison. Wow, they even got to organizations in Australia and Africa-what a wide-ranging conspiracy! Plus, a scientific conspiracy of this magnitude is not only impractical, it's impossible. "Junk" science and any incorrect assertions are taken care of through the scientific method. The scientific method was designed specifically to disprove assertions (hypotheses). So far, there literally thousands of peer-reviewed papers supporting anthropogenic climate change. I'm waiting for you to just show me one study that proves this hypothesis to be false.
I am fully in favor of developing our own oil and gas resources in America, as long as it's done right. So is Obama. Tell me what he's done to stop this development. Putting alternatives on equal footing with fossil fuels is not curtailing oil and gas development. We are still drilling for oil and gas, and we will continue to do so under this policy.
I called your question about green jobs "silly" simply because you are maintaining that there should be millions of green jobs already, while the market has been rigged in favor of oil jobs for years. Just wait a few years and you'll see those green jobs.
You guys know we've already done the cap and trade thing for acid deposition, don't you? Did that spell the death of the US economy as we know it?
June 30, 2009 at 7:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Soren Jesperson: Act now against warming
Fred, you must not be aware of this climate change legislation.
The House-passed bill contains provisions to make it easier to get loan guarantees and expands the nuclear industry's access to loans for reactor construction, a big problem for that industry. An Environmental Protection Agency analysis that shows modest future costs from a low-climate energy world assumes a significant expansion of nuclear energy. Plus, nuclear power would benefit greatly from a cap-and-trade system because the technology does not emit carbon dioxide. The Senate could add more incentives for the nuclear industry.
Some "loons" might not want nuclear, but obviously the liberals that matter (the policy makers) understand its importance. We're going to need EVERY kind of energy in a post peak oil world.
June 28, 2009 at 11:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Soren Jesperson: Act now against warming
Finally, let's talk climate change. Here's a list of 28 scientific organizations concurring with anthropogenic climate change:
1. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
2. Joint science academies' statement 2007
3. Joint science academies' statement 2005
4. Joint science academies' statement 2001
5. Network of African Science Academies
6. U.S. National Research Council, 2001
7. American Meteorological Society
8. Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
9. World Meteorological Organization (WMO)
10. American Geophysical Union
11. American Institute of Physics
12. American Astronomical Society
13. American Physical Society
14. Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006
15. National Center for Atmospheric Research
16. American Association for the Advancement of Science
17. Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
18. American Quaternary Association
19. Geological Society of America
20. American Chemical Society
21. Federation of American Scientists
22. Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
23. Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
24. The Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
25. European Geosciences Union
26. International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
27. International Union of Geological Sciences
28. International Council for Science
I would like to know who you would have us believe if it's not these organizations. What science are we to believe besides the thousands of studies published concurring with these conclusions? Let's see, should I trust the American Institute of Physics, or some dude that calls himself 'popcan' on the Steamboat Pilot forum?
June 28, 2009 at 9:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Soren Jesperson: Act now against warming
A few more points for popcan and seeuski:
Europe has made significant strides is reducing their dependence on oil by using similar measures. Europeans' per capital oil use is much much lower than ours. We use 68.672 bbl/day per 1,000 people. The UK uses less than half that, 29.008 bbl/day per 1,000 people. That's very substantial. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene...
Reducing our use of oil isn't only important for our environment. It's critical for our economy. There's absolutely no question which direction energy is moving in the world right now. The question is do we want to lead, or do we want all our alternative energy innovators to move their companies to Germany instead of making money for America. We're better off shifting jobs gradually now than a more drastic decline of the oil industry.
June 28, 2009 at 9:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Soren Jesperson: Act now against warming
Hey popcan, I'll answer your silly question. Why aren't there more green jobs?
Because 85% of our energy comes from fossil fuels.
You must be confused. That's exactly what this bill is trying to change. You don't see effects of policy before it is instated.
I don't like that this bill could push production to China where there are no similar measures. We won't make much of a dent in world carbon emissions. However, we need to do SOMETHING to curb our use of oil. If they added a tariff on imported good that used fossil fuels, that might do the trick. We also need a gradual gasoline tax.
"I have been an oilman for 50 years, so it may seem odd for me to predict that our days of pumping gas into our cars is over. Here's the problem with oil: The world currently produces 85 million barrels daily. Production volume will not rise. Yet as third world countries become greater consumers of oil, the resource will become more valuable. I predict that by the end of this year the price of a barrel of oil will rise to $75. In three years it'll be back up to $150. In 10 years, if America has done nothing to cut our dependence on oil, we'll be importing 70 percent of our oil and paying $300 a barrel for it. We had better do something about it before we have a disaster on our hands."
--T. Boone Pickens
History will look back on any legislation to create market signals to push us towards alternative energy sources as a huge positive step for America.
June 28, 2009 at 9:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
More than 100 people attended the Taxpayer Tea Party on Wednesday in front of the Routt County Court
How many of these hypocrites voted for Bush? 90%?
The politicians aren't the problem. As long as money talks in Washington, it doesn't matter who you vote out. Let's see if FreedomWorks and its billionaire right-wing backers support no more private campaign contributions. Yeah, right.
April 16, 2009 at 6:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Yellowstone wolf found dead in NW Colorado
Um, no. This wolf died in March.
April 16, 2009 at 6:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Paul Bonnifield: Stimulus plan is good
seeyski, you are quoting conservative think tanks. Of course they're going to blame the Dems and poor minorities. Your points only show that ALL politicians were involved in deregulation. Nice plug for McCain. What to take a look at all the deregulation he supported? Care to talk about all the deregulation supported by the GOP?
By the way, I'm glad I got a conservative to admit deregulation and lack of oversight was a major factor in this crisis.
As we've said before, there are/were many to blame for this crisis, and almost everyone disagrees who owns the most blame. But absolving the companies themselves, and/or trying to pin all this on the Dems is rediculous. And you know it.
February 22, 2009 at 5:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Paul Bonnifield: Stimulus plan is good
seeuski, what are you "redlining laws" are you referring to that forced banks to make marginal loans? Are you referring to the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) passed under Carter and amended in the 90s that required some banks to loan to minorities? Although this might have been a contributing factor, it was in no way a major factor in the bank collapse.
The CRA applies to depository banks. But many of the institutions that spurred the massive growth of the subprime market weren't regulated banks. They were outfits such as Argent and American Home Mortgage, which were generally not regulated by the Federal Reserve or other entities that monitored compliance with CRA. These institutions worked hand in glove with Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, entities to which the CRA likewise didn't apply.
Plus, the CRA didn't force mortgage companies to offer loans for no money down, or to throw underwriting standards out the window, or to encourage mortgage brokers to aggressively seek out new markets. Nor did the CRA force the credit-rating agencies to slap high-grade ratings on packages of subprime debt.
Additionally, lending money to poor people and minorities isn't inherently risky. There's plenty of evidence that in fact it's not that risky at all. That's what we've learned from several decades of microlending programs, at home and abroad, with their very high repayment rates. And as the New York Times recently reported, Nehemiah Homes, a long-running initiative to build homes and sell them to the working poor in subprime areas of New York's outer boroughs, has a repayment rate that lenders in Greenwich, Conn., would envy. In 27 years, there have been fewer than 10 defaults on the project's 3,900 homes. That's a rate of 0.25 percent.
Dumb lending originated in Greenwich, Conn., midtown Manhattan, and Southern California, not Eastchester, Brownsville, and Washington, D.C. Investment banks created a demand for subprime loans because they saw it as a new asset class that they could dominate. They made subprime loans for the same reason they made other loans: They could get paid for making the loans, for turning them into securities, and for trading them-frequently using borrowed capital.
CRA and loaning to minorities are not responsible for the supremely poor decision-making seen in the financial system. Much of this crisis lies directly on the banks and their risky behavior.
February 20, 2009 at 8:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )