Obama's energy plan

Change you can believe in!

That's a real shame!

EDIT: The date on that was April 30. I am hoping he has revised his plan. I'm counting on it.

G

Obama energy plan opens Atlantic and Gulf to offshore drilling - CNN.com read it and weep

Does Obama really have a choice? It is a given that we will be very dependent on oil for the forseeable future. We will either have to go offshore, near shore or onshore if we want to continue domestic production. Near shore is a non-starter in my book. Offshore has historically been ok until one month ago. On shore in Alaska may be reasonable and may be the most environmentally friendly option. A tough call, to be sure, but one somebody has got to make. And yes, I understand that we should be researching and developing alternative energy in the interim, but we are nowhere near ready to wean off oil yet.

Responses pecked out on your petroleum rich keyboard welcome

Does Obama really have a choice? It is a given that we will be very dependent on oil for the forseeable future. We will either have to go offshore, near shore or onshore if we want to continue domestic production. Near shore is a non-starter in my book. Offshore has historically been ok until one month ago. On shore in Alaska may be reasonable and may be the most environmentally friendly option. A tough call, to be sure, but one somebody has got to make. And yes, I understand that we should be researching and developing alternative energy in the interim, but we are nowhere near ready to wean off oil yet.

Exactly. We've know for 37 years that our dependency on oil was dangerous and ultimately unsustainable. In spite of that, we've done pretty much nothing to fix it (other than to wage some idiotic wars and to keep searching for more oil.)

Until we've got a leader who is willing to attack alternate energy like JFK attacked putting a man on the moon (like a national war effort) it isn't going to change.

Exactly. We've know for 37 years that our dependency on oil was dangerous and ultimately unsustainable. In spite of that, we've done pretty much nothing to fix it (other than to wage some idiotic wars and to keep searching for more oil.)

Until we've got a leader who is willing to attack alternate energy like JFK attacked putting a man on the moon (like a national war effort) it isn't going to change.

Like this? These are all Obama campaign promises being rated by Politifact as in the works or completed :

No. 441: Reduce oil consumption by 35 percent by 2030 Will "reduce oil consumption overall by at least 35 percent, or 10 million barrels of oil, by 2030."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...reduce-oil-consumption-by-35-percent-by-2030/
No. 443: Require 10 percent renewable energy by 2012 Will "require 10 Percent of electricity to come from renewable sources by 2012. Barack Obama and
Joe Biden will establish a 10 percent federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to require that
10 percent of electricity consumed in the U.S. is derived from clean, sustainable energy sources,
like solar, wind and geothermal by 2012."


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m.../require-10-percent-renewable-energy-by-2012/No. 444: Require 25 percent renewable energy by 2025
"Will create a federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) that will require 25 percent of American electricity be derived from renewable sources by 2025, which has the potential to create hundreds of thousands of new jobs on its own."

No. 452: Weatherize 1 million homes per year "Will make a national commitment to weatherize at least 1 million low-income homes each year for the next decade, which can reduce energy usage across the economy and help moderate energy prices for all."


No. 457: Invest $150 billion to encourage "green" business sector
"I will invest $150 billion over the next 10 years - $15 billion a year - to put America on the path of true energy security. This fund will fast-track investments in a new green energy business sector that will end our addiction to oil and create up to 5 million jobs over the next two decades."


No. 461: Require utilities to reduce electricity demand
"Will set an aggressive energy efficiency goal?to reduce electricity demand 15 percent from DOE's projected levels by 2020. Implementing this program will save consumers a total of $130 billion, reduce carbon dioxide emissions by more than 5 billion tons through 2030, and create jobs. A portion of this goal would be met by setting annual demand reduction targets that utilities would need to meet. The rest would come from more stringent building and appliance standards."


No. 464: Reduce energy consumption in federal buildings
"Will make the federal government a leader in the green building market, achieving a 40 percent increase in efficiency in all new federal buildings within five years and ensuring that all new federal buildings are zero-emissions by 2025. They will invest in cost-effective retrofits to achieve a 25 percent increase in efficiency of existing federal buildings within 5 years. The Obama-Biden plan will put forward the resources necessary to achieve a 15 percent reduction in federal energy consumption by 2015."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...duce-energy-consumption-in-federal-buildings/http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...quire-utilities-to-reduce-electricity-demand/http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...est-150-billion-to-encourage-green-business-/http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/452/weatherize-1-million-homes-per-year/
No. 469: Require federal fleet to be half hybrids or electrical cars "Half of all cars purchased by the federal government will be plug-in hybrids or all-electric by 2012."


No. 473: Require production of more biofuels
"Will require at least 60 billion gallons of advanced biofuels by 2030. ? Will invest federal resources, including tax incentives and government contracts into eveloping the most promising technologies and building the infrastructure to support them."


No. 492: Phase out incandescent light bulbs
"I will immediately sign a law that begins to phase out all incandescent light bulbs - a measure that will save American consumers $6 billion a year on their electric bills."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/492/phase-out-incandescent-light-bulbs/http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/473/require-production-of-more-biofuels/http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...e-federal-fleet-to-be-half-hybrids-or-electr/
No. 495: Double federal spending for research on clean fuels Will "double science and research funding for clean energy projects including those that make use of our biomass, solar and wind resources."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-federal-spending-for-research-on-clean-fuel/

Like this? These are all Obama campaign promises being rated by Politifact as in the works or completed :



No. 492: Phase out incandescent light bulbs
"I will immediately sign a law that begins to phase out all incandescent light bulbs - a measure that will save American consumers $6 billion a year on their electric bills."

I heard this one got squished into the recovery act. Anyone else stocking up on incandescent so when the the ban takes full effect you'll have amply supply for the rest of your life? My attic is full of them, and getting fuller. I think the cut off date is 2020.

I heard this one got squished into the recovery act. Anyone else stocking up on incandescent so when the the ban takes full effect you'll have amply supply for the rest of your life? My attic is full of them, and getting fuller. I think the cut off date is 2020.

So you are against a savings of $6 Billion by American consumers and also helping to stem the tide of Global Warming, or just an incandescent lighting fan in general?

I heard this one got squished into the recovery act. Anyone else stocking up on incandescent so when the the ban takes full effect you'll have amply supply for the rest of your life? My attic is full of them, and getting fuller. I think the cut off date is 2020.

I think whatever you're smoking out of those light bulbs you need to cut back.

Does Obama really have a choice? It is a given that we will be very dependent on oil for the forseeable future. We will either have to go offshore, near shore or onshore if we want to continue domestic production. Near shore is a non-starter in my book. Offshore has historically been ok until one month ago. On shore in Alaska may be reasonable and may be the most environmentally friendly option. A tough call, to be sure, but one somebody has got to make. And yes, I understand that we should be researching and developing alternative energy in the interim, but we are nowhere near ready to wean off oil yet.

Responses pecked out on your petroleum rich keyboard welcome

Hang on a sec. Ready to wean off oil is one thing. Able to cease domestic production is another. The technology exists today for us to cut oil consumption equal to the amount that we produce.

In other words- if we produce 20% of the oil we consume then we would only need to consume 20% less than we do to break even (if we ceased to drill for oil)...

This would be easy IF (yes- a big IF) we had courageous leaders and informed voters. Neither the cost nor the technology is the issue.

So you are against a savings of $6 Billion by American consumers and also helping to stem the tide of Global Warming, or just an incandescent lighting fan in general?

I refuse to give up incandescent lighting for any reason. Florescent lighting is just plain gross. I do plenty to conserve, but there are limits!

I think whatever you're smoking out of those light bulbs you need to cut back.

Under the law, incandescent bulbs that produce 310?2600 lumens of light are effectively phased out between 2012 and 2014. Bulbs outside this range (roughly, light bulbs currently less than 40 watts or more than 150 watts) are exempt from the ban. Also exempt are several classes of speciality lights, including appliance lamps, "rough service" bulbs, 3-way, colored lamps, and plant lights.

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Independence_and_Security_Act_of_2007[/ame]



I was wrong, it kicks in in 2014. Created by the democrats, signed into law by Bush in 2007. Apparently Obama wants to accelerate the time table.

Still think I'm smoking something?

Things have changed a bit in the last 37 years.

Do we have working commercial wind power turbines - yes.

Do we have working commercial solar power plants - yes.

Do we have hybrid or high MPG vehicles that are affordable and available to the average consumer - yes.

Do we have incentives for people to insulate their homes and buy high-efficiency appliances - yes.

Do we have technology available so that a residence can produce its own energy (or more) - yes.

Do we have a long list of ways we can reduce our consumption of oil and use less energy - yes.

Do we have gas prices that have more than doubled in the last decade - yes.

So what's so impossible about cutting our oil consumption?

I wish we could lump our posts together, Scooty. Go up a few. Totally in sync with you...

I refuse to give up incandescent lighting for any reason. Florescent lighting is just plain gross. I do plenty to conserve, but there are limits!

the founding slaveholders had oil lamps, wood fires, candles and moonlight

Hang on a sec. Ready to wean off oil is one thing. Able to cease domestic production is another. The technology exists today for us to cut oil consumption equal to the amount that we produce.

In other words- if we produce 20% of the oil we consume then we would only need to consume 20% less than we do to break even (if we ceased to drill for oil)...

This would be easy IF (yes- a big IF) we had courageous leaders and informed voters. Neither the cost nor the technology is the issue.

Alright, replace the word wean with 'give up'. We are not. Period. That is a pipe dream. We are ready to cut back, kind of like smokers tell me on a daily basis they are 'cutting back' on their cigarettes. I heard an interesting interview with Shell's former CEO a day or two back (pimping his new book) and he foresaw the death of the internal combustion engine within the next 50 years or so but very soberly detailed how heavily the world depends on petroleum. Any phase out of petroleum will be slow, slow, slow.

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I was wrong, it kicks in in 2014. Created by the democrats, signed into law by Bush in 2007. Apparently Obama wants to accelerate the time table.

Still think I'm smoking something?

I think it's really funny that you care that much about incandescent lighting. I only care about it for certain decorative things. You can't use fluorescent with dimmers. That sucks. Also I do have to wonder about the environmental impact of mercury laden fluorescent bulbs.

Don't forget, LED lights are going to become more mainstream. I think the exemptions will more than satisfy my incandescent needs. I'll have to look into it more. I can't see stocking up on them. Look what happened the last time there was a bulb craze.

I think it's really funny that you care that much about incandescent lighting. I only care about it for certain decorative things. You can't use fluorescent with dimmers. That sucks. Also I do have to wonder about the environmental impact of mercury laden fluorescent bulbs.

Don't forget, LED lights are going to become more mainstream. I think the exemptions will more than satisfy my incandescent needs. I'll have to look into it more. I can't see stocking up on them. Look what happened the last time there was a bulb craze.

To each his own. But you can't have any of mine when the ban kicks in, so don't even ask. :rofl:

To each his own. But you can't have any of mine when the ban kicks in, so don't even ask. :rofl:

:roll:The last time somebody got giddy about a light bulb he had to have it surgically removed.

Slinky, I agree with you that any phasing out of petroleum will be slow, slow, slow. But it would be much faster if people would get real that technology isn't what's stopping it from being fast, fast, fast.

I love when the special interest groups air commercials talking about the energy resources of the future. They show us cars that will someday run on hydrogen. It's so brilliant that they completely skip over the technology that is ready to go now (and has been ready) so that the masses think we are waiting on options... Ugh!

I haven't done the math but I'm pretty sure if our congress passed a law that required every production automobile to be offered in a hybrid version that the resulting reduction in consumption would exceed what we produce domestically.

To each his own. But you can't have any of mine when the ban kicks in, so don't even ask. :rofl:

This so reminds me of the Seinfield, Sponge Worthy episode, thanks for the laugh in the middle of all the seriousness.

On another forum I read, an Exxon engineer said the US will have to greatly reduce consumption before cutting back on domestic drilling in order to fulfill their OPEC agreement.

Slinky, I agree with you that any phasing out of petroleum will be slow, slow, slow. But it would be much faster if people would get real that technology isn't what's stopping it from being fast, fast, fast.

I love when the special interest groups air commercials talking about the energy resources of the future. They show us cars that will someday run on hydrogen. It's so brilliant that they completely skip over the technology that is ready to go now (and has been ready) so that the masses think we are waiting on options... Ugh!

I haven't done the math but I'm pretty sure if our congress passed a law that required every production automobile to be offered in a hybrid version that the resulting reduction in consumption would exceed what we produce domestically.

But I don't want to drive a hybrid. I work from home, and consume less gas in a year than the average commuter consumes in a month. This law you propose would punish me to change the behavior of others. Why should I be punished? Instead, lets pass a law that tracks vehicle mileage, and anyone caught driving over say 4K miles a year, pays a major fine, say, 20% of their gross income. Does that work for you Geo?

My thought was that automakers simply be required to offer every model as a hybrid (alongside its gas guzzling counterpart) and then offer unbelievable Incentives to consumers who choose the hybrid version and a big tax on the nonhybrid version.

If you want to go against the country's efforts to become energy independent and to protect the environment (or you just want to burn more fossil fuels because you can) then go right ahead. But it'll cost you.

That's one way of doing it.

My thought was that automakers simply be required to offer every model as a hybrid (alongside its gas guzzling counterpart) and then offer unbelievable Incentives to consumers who choose the hybrid version and a big tax on the nonhybrid version.

If you want to go against the country's efforts to become energy independent and to protect the environment (or you just want to burn more fossil fuels because you can) then go right ahead. But it'll cost you.

That's one way of doing it.

That would punish people who couldn't afford a hybrid. If you really want to curb use, the simplest and proven solution would be to raise the gas tax over a period of time by about 2-3- dollars.

My thought was that automakers simply be required to offer every model as a hybrid (alongside its gas guzzling counterpart) and then offer unbelievable Incentives to consumers who choose the hybrid version and a big tax on the nonhybrid version.

If you want to go against the country's efforts to become energy independent and to protect the environment (or you just want to burn more fossil fuels because you can) then go right ahead. But it'll cost you.

That's one way of doing it.

I heard on NPR this morning that the last civilian Hummer rolled off the assembly line yesterday. It seems that sometimes the markets can work in sensible automobile production (or phase out), too.

I'm looking forward to see how the Volt does.

Shopper, I don't think you fully got my last clarification. My idea is to make the hybrid cheaper than the standard gas guzzling model (after factoring in govt incentives for the hybrid and the tax hit for the standard).