PDA

View Full Version : The Green New Deal that will never be



Chloe
12-23-2012, 04:06 PM
Summary of the Green New Deal


The Green New Deal is a four part program for moving America quickly out of crisis into a secure, sustainable future. Inspired by the New Deal programs that helped us out of the Great Depression of the 1930s, the Green New Deal will provide similar relief and create an economy that makes our communities sustainable, healthy and just.

THE FOUR PILLARS OF THE GREEN NEW DEAL
I - THE ECONOMIC BILL OF RIGHTS

Our country cannot truly move forward until the roots of inequality are pulled up, and the seeds of a new, healthier economy are planted. Thus, the Green New Deal begins with an Economic Bill of Rights that ensures all citizens:
1. The right to employment through a Full Employment Program that will create 25 million jobs by implementing a nationally funded, but locally controlled direct employment initiative replacing unemployment offices with local employment offices offering public sector jobs which are “stored” in job banks in order to take up any slack in private sector employment.
• Local communities will use a process of broad stakeholder input and democratic decisionmaking to fairly implement these programs.
• Pay-to-play prohibitions will ensure that campaign contributions or lobbying favors do not impact decision-making.
• We will end unemployment in America once and for all by guaranteeing a job at a living wage for every American willing and able to work.
2. Worker’s rights including the right to a living wage, to a safe workplace, to fair trade, and to organize a union at work without fear of firing or reprisal.
3. The right to quality health care which will be achieved through a single-payer Medicare-for-All program.
4. The right to a tuition-free, quality, federally funded, local controlled public education system from pre-school through college. We will also forgive student loan debt from the current era of unaffordable college education.
5. The right to decent affordable housing, including an immediate halt to all foreclosures and evictions. We will:
• create a federal bank with local branches to take over homes with distressed mortgages and either restructure the mortgages to affordable levels, or if the occupants cannot afford a mortgage, rent homes to the occupants;
• expand rental and home ownership assistance;
• create ample public housing; and,
• offer capital grants to non-profit developers of affordable housing until all people can obtain decent housing at no more than 25% of their income.
6. The right to accessible and affordable utilities – heat, electricity, phone, internet, and public transportation – through democratically run, publicly owned utilities that operate at cost, not for profit.
7. The right to fair taxation that’s distributed in proportion to ability to pay. In addition, corporate tax subsidies will be made transparent by detailing them in public budgets where they can be scrutinized, not hidden as tax breaks.

II - A GREEN TRANSITION
The second priority of the Green New Deal is a Green Transition Program that will convert the old, gray economy into a new, sustainable economy that is environmentally sound, economically viable and socially responsible. We will:
1. Invest in green business by providing grants and low-interest loans to grow green businesses and cooperatives, with an emphasis on small, locally-based companies that keep the wealth created by local labor circulating in the community rather than being drained off to enrich absentee investors.
2. Prioritize green research by redirecting research funds from fossil fuels and other dead-end industries toward research in wind, solar and geothermal. We will invest in research in sustainable, nontoxic materials, closed-loop cycles that eliminate waste and pollution, as well as organic agriculture, permaculture, and sustainable forestry.
3. Provide green jobs by enacting the Full Employment Program which will directly provide 16 million jobs in sustainable energy and energy efficiency retrofitting, mass transit and “complete streets” that promote safe bike and pedestrian traffic, regional food systems based on sustainable organic agriculture, and clean manufacturing.

Chloe
12-23-2012, 04:06 PM
III - REAL FINANCIAL REFORM
The takeover of our economy by big banks and well-connected financiers has destabilized both our democracy and our economy. It’s time to take Wall Street out of the driver’s seat and to free the truly productive segments of working America to make this economy work for all of us. Real Financial Reform will:
1. Relieve the debt overhang holding back the economy by reducing homeowner and student debt burdens.
2. Democratize monetary policy to bring about public control of the money supply and credit creation. This means we’ll nationalize the private bank-dominated Federal Reserve Banks and place them under a Monetary Authority within the Treasury Department.
3. Break up the oversized banks that are “too big to fail.”
4. End taxpayer-funded bailouts for banks, insurers, and other financial companies. We’ll use the FDIC resolution process for failed banks to reopen them as public banks where possible after failed loans and underlying assets are auctioned off.
5. Regulate all financial derivatives and require them to be traded on open exchanges.
6. Restore the Glass-Steagall separation of depository commercial banks from speculative investment banks.
7. Establish a 90% tax on bonuses for bailed out bankers.
8. Support the formation of federal, state, and municipal public-owned banks that function as non-profit utilities.
Under the Green New Deal we will start building a financial system that is open, honest, stable, and serves the real economy rather than the phony economy of high finance.

IV - A FUNCTIONING DEMOCRACY
We won’t get these vital reforms without a fourth and final set of reforms to give us a real, functioning democracy. Just as we are replacing the old economy with a new one, we need a new politics to restore the promise of American democracy. The New Green Deal will:
1. Revoke corporate personhood by amending our Constitution to make clear that corporations are not persons and money is not speech. Those rights belong to living, breathing human beings - not to business entities controlled by the wealthy.
2. Protect our right to vote by supporting Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr.’s proposed “Right to Vote Amendment,” to clarify to the Supreme Court that yes, we do have a constitutional right to vote.
3. Enact the Voter Bill of Rights that will:
• guarantee us a voter-marked paper ballot for all voting;
• require that all votes are counted before election results are released;
• replace partisan oversight of elections with non-partisan election commissions;
• celebrate our democratic aspirations by making Election Day a national holiday;
• bring simplified, safe same-day voter registration to the nation so that no qualified voter is barred from the polls;
• do away with so-called “winner take all” elections in which the “winner” does not have the support of most of the voters, and replace that system with instant runoff voting and proportional representation, systems most advanced countries now use to good effect;
• replace big money control of election campaigns with full public financing and free and equal access to the airwaves;
• guarantee equal access to the ballot and to the debates to all qualified candidates;
• abolish the Electoral College and implement direct election of the President;
• restore the vote to ex-offenders who’ve paid their debt to society; and,
• enact Statehood for the District of Columbia so that those Americans have representation in Congress and full rights to self rule like the rest of us.
4. Protect local democracy and democratic rights by commissioning a thorough review of federal preemption law and its impact on the practice of local democracy in the United States. This review will put at its center the “democracy question” – that is, what level of government is most open to democratic participation and most suited to protecting democratic rights.
5. Create a Corporation for Economic Democracy, a new federal corporation (like the Corporation for Public Broadcasting) to provide publicity, training, education, and direct financing for cooperative development and for democratic reforms to make government agencies, private associations, and business enterprises more participatory.
6. Strengthen media democracy by expanding federal support for locally-owned broadcast media and local print media.
7. Protect our personal liberty and freedoms by:
• repealing the Patriot Act and those parts of the National Defense Authorization Act that violate our civil liberties;
• prohibiting the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI from conspiring with local police forces to suppress our freedoms of assembly and of speech; and,
• ending the war on immigrants – including the cruel, so-called “secure communities” program.
8. Rein in the military-industrial complex by
• reducing military spending by 50% and closing U.S. military bases around the world;
• restoring the National Guard as the centerpiece of our system of national defense; and,
• creating a new round of nuclear disarmament initiatives.
Let us not rest until we have pulled our nation back from the brink, and until we have secured the peaceful, just, green future we all deserve.

Chloe
12-23-2012, 04:07 PM
I know it's kind of a long read but this was the proposed "Green New Deal" from Dr. Jill Stein over the last election. It's interesting and was probably overlooked a lot by the media and quite frankly by most voters. Just posting it to get opinions and just general conversation.

and yes this is the person and platform that I voted for in the last election in case anybody is wondering my actual political party affiliation. I am a registered pacific green.

Peter1469
12-23-2012, 05:21 PM
The New Deal was Unconstitutional; secured only by threatening SCOTUS by a court packing scheme at the end of 1936. Prior to this SCOTUS struck down all New Deal legislation. After the scheme, every single thing was deemed OK by SCOTUS under an "expansive" reading of the Commerce Clause. Until US v. Lopez in 1995 began to limit Congressional power under the Commerce Clause. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez

Then in 2012, SCOTUS, under J. Roberts, put a nail into the expansive reading of the Commerce Clause in the Obamacare case. A liberal majority, although I am sure they would fight this tooth and nail in the future. In the Obamacare cases, SCOTUS, the majority, held that Congress does not have the power, under the Commerce Clause, to require citizens to enter into contracts with private business (health insurance companies). What SCOTUS did do was say that Congress could do this via its taxing powers.

I disagree with that last part 100%. But just how many of these laws will be passed as taxes? (Probably zero). [You can't divorce the taxing power from the enumerated clauses of Art. 1, Sec. 8, US Const.]

But the Commerce Clause is no longer available for you Chloe. You will have to pitch it as a tax (doomed to fail in America) or you will have to seek a Constitutional Amendment- as our Founders desired.

Chloe
12-23-2012, 07:02 PM
Is there anything up there on the first two posts that you agree with or like?

Peter1469
12-24-2012, 04:10 AM
I. 1-5 are socialistic Utopian ideas that are impossible to achieve, without massive social changes. Many times, jobs are not scarce, but rather the job location or skill set is the problem. And to have the government hire people who can't get jobs in the private sector just adds to the size of government, and the incompetence of government workers.

I. 6: We could have free electricity if the big energy companies and governments got out of the way. http://www.free-energy.ws/nikola-tesla.html

I.7: I would prefer to end all income taxes and replace them with The Fair Tax. http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

But for 6 and 7, I wouldn't use the term "rights"

II. 1-2: I like this idea, but when the government does it, as we have seen under the Obama regime, they give money to companies that contributed to their campaign without concern that the company is on the verge of bankruptcy.

II.3: Same problem as the job program mentioned above. Green jobs are likely to be either highly technical or none-skilled. That leaves a lot of people out.

III.1: I agree that our debt will be deleveraged one way or the other (managed or unmanaged/crash) But this plan is just pandering to a certain class of people and creates a moral hazard by rewarding people who made incorrect choices (well intentioned, and fraudulent). In other words, I bought a condo for $300K while I was on active duty. A friend of mine bought a house for $900K. We made the same money (same rank in the Army). His wife did not work, mine did (that we had a lot more income than they did). His bank didn't even ask for income verification. If both of our mortgages were forgiven, he would get a windfall. Is that fair. Or was I just short-sighted in not buying a house that I could not afford?

III.2: No. End the Federal Reserve. Have the treasury print Greenbacks and issue them to private banks. If you nationalize the banks, the government would likely to a worse job than the corrupt federal reserve. See the post office as an example.

III.3: absolutely. And never bail out a private company with tax dollars.

III.4: Yes end the bailouts. No, the FDIC "process" isn't used to reorganize failed banks. It is an insurance policy for depositors. Banks are put into receivership to be reorganized after failure- like a bankruptcy process.

III.5: Yes. And bring back Glass Steagal, and keep banks separate from financial institutions.

III.6: Yes.

III.7: No. This is class warfare. Wall Street bankers get a modest salary (for NYC) and bust their butts for bonuses that are mostly merit based. I do like the idea of claw-back provisions if regulators find that bonuses were not merit based.

III.8: Not needed if you do 6, above. Plus the profit motive is what provides for good customer service and innovation.

IV: Democracy is arguably the worst form of government. Ask two wolves and one sheep what is for dinner. That is democracy. America is a federal republic.

IV.1: Agreed, although a Constitutional Amendment is overkill. The concept of corporate personhood was created in a headnote to a SCOTUS decision- it wasn't even written by a Justice. I have called for legislation to clarify this for a long time.

IV.2: No. There is no general right to vote. The US is a republic, not a democracy.

IV.3: No, but some of those principles are good. Namely, transparent voting. However votes are cast, the results must be open to the public at the point they were cast. For computer systems, once the data is moved, there is no way to see if it was changed.

So I agreed with two points and part of a third. It is a strange combination of democracy and more government.

Chloe
12-24-2012, 11:19 AM
I. 1-5 are socialistic Utopian ideas that are impossible to achieve, without massive social changes. Many times, jobs are not scarce, but rather the job location or skill set is the problem. And to have the government hire people who can't get jobs in the private sector just adds to the size of government, and the incompetence of government workers.

I. 6: We could have free electricity if the big energy companies and governments got out of the way. http://www.free-energy.ws/nikola-tesla.html

I.7: I would prefer to end all income taxes and replace them with The Fair Tax. http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

But for 6 and 7, I wouldn't use the term "rights"

II. 1-2: I like this idea, but when the government does it, as we have seen under the Obama regime, they give money to companies that contributed to their campaign without concern that the company is on the verge of bankruptcy.

II.3: Same problem as the job program mentioned above. Green jobs are likely to be either highly technical or none-skilled. That leaves a lot of people out.

III.1: I agree that our debt will be deleveraged one way or the other (managed or unmanaged/crash) But this plan is just pandering to a certain class of people and creates a moral hazard by rewarding people who made incorrect choices (well intentioned, and fraudulent). In other words, I bought a condo for $300K while I was on active duty. A friend of mine bought a house for $900K. We made the same money (same rank in the Army). His wife did not work, mine did (that we had a lot more income than they did). His bank didn't even ask for income verification. If both of our mortgages were forgiven, he would get a windfall. Is that fair. Or was I just short-sighted in not buying a house that I could not afford?

III.2: No. End the Federal Reserve. Have the treasury print Greenbacks and issue them to private banks. If you nationalize the banks, the government would likely to a worse job than the corrupt federal reserve. See the post office as an example.

III.3: absolutely. And never bail out a private company with tax dollars.

III.4: Yes end the bailouts. No, the FDIC "process" isn't used to reorganize failed banks. It is an insurance policy for depositors. Banks are put into receivership to be reorganized after failure- like a bankruptcy process.

III.5: Yes. And bring back Glass Steagal, and keep banks separate from financial institutions.

III.6: Yes.

III.7: No. This is class warfare. Wall Street bankers get a modest salary (for NYC) and bust their butts for bonuses that are mostly merit based. I do like the idea of claw-back provisions if regulators find that bonuses were not merit based.

III.8: Not needed if you do 6, above. Plus the profit motive is what provides for good customer service and innovation.

IV: Democracy is arguably the worst form of government. Ask two wolves and one sheep what is for dinner. That is democracy. America is a federal republic.

IV.1: Agreed, although a Constitutional Amendment is overkill. The concept of corporate personhood was created in a headnote to a SCOTUS decision- it wasn't even written by a Justice. I have called for legislation to clarify this for a long time.

IV.2: No. There is no general right to vote. The US is a republic, not a democracy.

IV.3: No, but some of those principles are good. Namely, transparent voting. However votes are cast, the results must be open to the public at the point they were cast. For computer systems, once the data is moved, there is no way to see if it was changed.

So I agreed with two points and part of a third. It is a strange combination of democracy and more government.

Fair enough

KC
12-24-2012, 11:31 AM
I agree with almost everything in Part IV. IMO, Stein was one of the best candidates in the recent election. I disagree with a lot of her economics but I think she appropriately blamed the Dems for their hypocrisy on civil liberties and the war on terror and for that she definitely deserves respect.

Chloe
12-24-2012, 11:35 AM
I really wish they would have let her be in on the major debates somehow.

KC
12-24-2012, 11:43 AM
I really wish they would have let her be in on the major debates somehow.

Same but I did watch a debate between all of the third parties hosted by Larry King. She did a pretty good job but overall the candidates didn't seize the tiny bit of exposure they were getting to show that they could hone their message to make it appealing.

Johnson, who was my candidate, looked like he was trying to be tough but I thought he came off as sort of cranky. Stein came off a little better but I think her party should cut a bit of the more utopian rhetoric and focus on attacking the Democrats on bad governance, then try to put more pressure on the left. Historically that's what has brought electoral reform in many European countries.

Chloe
12-24-2012, 12:34 PM
Same but I did watch a debate between all of the third parties hosted by Larry King. She did a pretty good job but overall the candidates didn't seize the tiny bit of exposure they were getting to show that they could hone their message to make it appealing.

Johnson, who was my candidate, looked like he was trying to be tough but I thought he came off as sort of cranky. Stein came off a little better but I think her party should cut a bit of the more utopian rhetoric and focus on attacking the Democrats on bad governance, then try to put more pressure on the left. Historically that's what has brought electoral reform in many European countries.

I agree for the most part about the utopian rhetoric but at the same time I think a lot of it is doable if the culture and mindset of the country was a little different, but yes, I do think she should have done a better job of differentiating herself from the democrats and show that it really is a legitimate third party.

Chloe
12-24-2012, 12:56 PM
Peter do you think that the current representative style of government is a good thing the way it is or do you think more direct participation would be worth looking into? Maybe not on the federal level to start off but maybe the local and state level?

Peter1469
12-24-2012, 01:27 PM
Peter do you think that the current representative style of government is a good thing the way it is or do you think more direct participation would be worth looking into? Maybe not on the federal level to start off but maybe the local and state level?

It depends upon what you mean. Productive people have a full work load already. That is why they elect (hire) representatives to take care of the politics. Local governments are much easier to influence directly. Just show up to the meetings and make your voice heard.

Chloe
12-24-2012, 01:31 PM
It depends upon what you mean. Productive people have a full work load already. That is why they elect (hire) representatives to take care of the politics. Local governments are much easier to influence directly. Just show up to the meetings and make your voice heard.

Yeah I'm not sure what I was trying to ask there. Let me try again with a different question:

If congress' approval rating is so low and congress is part of our representative system, and obviously people think they do a crappy job for us, should it be updated, fixed, changed, reorganized, abolished?

Peter1469
12-24-2012, 01:37 PM
Yeah I'm not sure what I was trying to ask there. Let me try again with a different question:

If congress' approval rating is so low and congress is part of our representative system, and obviously people think they do a crappy job for us, should it be updated, fixed, changed, reorganized, abolished?

Well, the Constitution already provides for that. The amendment process, or the convention process.

I would prefer that most power go back to the states where it belongs. Let the federal government only worry about what the Constitution tells them to be worried about.

Chloe
12-24-2012, 01:41 PM
Well, the Constitution already provides for that. The amendment process, or the convention process.

I would prefer that most power go back to the states where it belongs. Let the federal government only worry about what the Constitution tells them to be worried about.

Well you just have an answer for everything dont you :azn:

Peter1469
12-24-2012, 01:42 PM
Well you just have an answer for everything dont you :azn:

You don't mean that the same way my wife does, I hope. :shocked:

Chloe
12-24-2012, 01:43 PM
You don't mean that the same way my wife does, I hope. :shocked:

I'm not sure but i'm going to say no to put your mind at ease I guess

KC
12-24-2012, 01:51 PM
Peter do you think that the current representative style of government is a good thing the way it is or do you think more direct participation would be worth looking into? Maybe not on the federal level to start off but maybe the local and state level?

If you're talking about proportional representation at the local level, you might be surprised to find the US has a history of that already. I'm an advocate of electing state and local governments via proportional representation.

Anyway, if you're interested, I used this source among many others in my final class speech about why proportional representation is more effective than any other electoral system. As you can imagine, there was not an awake person in the room by the end of the speech, even if I'm not a terrible public speaker.

The History of Proportional Representation in the United States (https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/articles/Brief%20History%20of%20PR.htm)

zelmo1234
12-24-2012, 06:19 PM
I know it's kind of a long read but this was the proposed "Green New Deal" from Dr. Jill Stein over the last election. It's interesting and was probably overlooked a lot by the media and quite frankly by most voters. Just posting it to get opinions and just general conversation.

and yes this is the person and platform that I voted for in the last election in case anybody is wondering my actual political party affiliation. I am a registered pacific green.

Well I think that you have some things to consider!

First the New Deal did not end the Great Depression WWII did! There are a lot of historieans that believe that the New Deal actually prolonged the great depression

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx

Next you are assuming that Green energy is an economic boom?? It is more like a bust.

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/18/president-obamas-taxpayer-backed-green-energy-failures/

The jobs created by these companies are not the greatest either? Thus these companies are an economic drain, not stimulis.

While excutives and engineers make million the line workers make just above the poverty level.

And the reason that they are going out of business, is because there is no demand? The reason that there is no demand, is because green energy is still much more expensive that fossil fuels. Most of the systems never have a pay off.

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/eper_10.htm

The cost of the systems are very high and then the power generated must be higher, a country in recession can not afford those high prices, this is why europe is pulling back on green energy as well.

Chloe
12-29-2012, 04:00 PM
Well I think that you have some things to consider!

First the New Deal did not end the Great Depression WWII did! There are a lot of historieans that believe that the New Deal actually prolonged the great depression

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx

Next you are assuming that Green energy is an economic boom?? It is more like a bust.

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/18/president-obamas-taxpayer-backed-green-energy-failures/

The jobs created by these companies are not the greatest either? Thus these companies are an economic drain, not stimulis.

While excutives and engineers make million the line workers make just above the poverty level.

And the reason that they are going out of business, is because there is no demand? The reason that there is no demand, is because green energy is still much more expensive that fossil fuels. Most of the systems never have a pay off.

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/eper_10.htm

The cost of the systems are very high and then the power generated must be higher, a country in recession can not afford those high prices, this is why europe is pulling back on green energy as well.

I don't think green energy is a bust, it's not the norm yet obviously but not a bust. In my opinion we need to start investing in green energy and green technology now and not when we absolutely have to in the future. I think there are millions of people that are perfectly content waiting for oil and gas to be depleted before they start thinking about of wanting to turn a different direction, and that is the real bust for me.

KC
12-29-2012, 04:07 PM
I don't think green energy is a bust, it's not the norm yet obviously but not a bust. In my opinion we need to start investing in green energy and green technology now and not when we absolutely have to in the future. I think there are millions of people that are perfectly content waiting for oil and gas to be depleted before they start thinking about of wanting to turn a different direction, and that is the real bust for me.

You're right. Eventually we wil need to develop an alternative to fossil fuels. I have confidence that when it becomes obvious to investors that the supply is close to running out they will turn to alternatives. Shareholders of major oil companies won't simply let the companies vanish into irrelevancy, but if they do, all the better, because it will open opportunities for new investors and innovators.

Chloe
12-29-2012, 04:11 PM
You're right. Eventually we wil need to develop an alternative to fossil fuels. I have confidence that when it becomes obvious to investors that the supply is close to running out they will turn to alternatives. Shareholders of major oil companies won't simply let the companies vanish into irrelevancy, but if they do, all the better, because it will open opportunities for new investors and innovators.

You would think some of the huge oil companies out there would be trying to lead the way in moving away from fossil fuels since their name and wealth could probably carry more weight, but it just doesn't happen. Just because their company was built on oil doesn't mean it has to die for it either in my opinion. How great would it be in a company like Exxon decided that oil would not be their main business anymore and it would be solar or something with oil as a second or third focus.

KC
12-29-2012, 04:22 PM
You would think some of the huge oil companies out there would be trying to lead the way in moving away from fossil fuels since their name and wealth could probably carry more weight, but it just doesn't happen. Just because their company was built on oil doesn't mean it has to die for it either in my opinion. How great would it be in a company like Exxon decided that oil would not be their main business anymore and it would be solar or something with oil as a second or third focus.

It's a good idea, but the question of whether it's a good investment is still questionable. Clearly it's a good investment for those concerned about carbon entering the atmosphere, but that's far from the main concern of Exxon's shareholders. I think renewables will become a popular investment for energy companies when it looks like the oil is going to dry up. Probably not in our lifetime.

Peter1469
12-29-2012, 04:22 PM
I don't think green energy is a bust, it's not the norm yet obviously but not a bust. In my opinion we need to start investing in green energy and green technology now and not when we absolutely have to in the future. I think there are millions of people that are perfectly content waiting for oil and gas to be depleted before they start thinking about of wanting to turn a different direction, and that is the real bust for me.

As far as transportation fuels go, there only needs to be a one sentence law passed by Congress: that by 2015 all new cars sold in the US must be able to operate off 100% gas, 100% ethanol, 100% methanol, or any combination of these fuels.

That is it. The market would take over and correct the monopoly of gasoline as our transportation fuel. The technology for this is over a decade old, the cost per car is under $500. It may take a decade to get the infrastructure in place, but it will come if there are cars that can use it.

http://www.energyvictory.net/energy_victory_tour.htm

KC
12-29-2012, 04:34 PM
As far as transportation fuels go, there only needs to be a one sentence law passed by Congress: that by 2015 all new cars sold in the US must be able to operate off 100% gas, 100% ethanol, 100% methanol, or any combination of these fuels.

That is it. The market would take over and correct the monopoly of gasoline as our transportation fuel. The technology for this is over a decade old, the cost per car is under $500. It may take a decade to get the infrastructure in place, but it will come if there are cars that can use it.

http://www.energyvictory.net/energy_victory_tour.htm


I'm not sure why Congress ought to pass any law in order to improve the future of transportation fuel. Just get rid of federal ethanol requirements, end subsidies and sweetheart deals for oil and gas companies, and let the market run its course.

Peter1469
12-29-2012, 06:25 PM
I'm not sure why Congress ought to pass any law in order to improve the future of transportation fuel. Just get rid of federal ethanol requirements, end subsidies and sweetheart deals for oil and gas companies, and let the market run its course.

Because oil has a monopoly on transportation fuels. The free market does not work when monopolies are present. My link has a power point presentation that explains the problem. I would advocate ending the subsidies for ethanol.

KC
12-29-2012, 06:55 PM
Because oil has a monopoly on transportation fuels. The free market does not work when monopolies are present. My link has a power point presentation that explains the problem. I would advocate ending the subsidies for ethanol.

We don't have an infinite supply of oil, so the monopoly would be broken naturally once our supply is exhausted.

Peter1469
12-29-2012, 08:35 PM
We don't have an infinite supply of oil, so the monopoly would be broken naturally once our supply is exhausted.

How many wars have we fought over oil? Why not speed the process of creating a competitor? And if we really wanted to be aggressive about it, we could surplant oil and cause the devastation of the ME without firing a shot.

zelmo1234
12-29-2012, 11:37 PM
I don't think green energy is a bust, it's not the norm yet obviously but not a bust. In my opinion we need to start investing in green energy and green technology now and not when we absolutely have to in the future. I think there are millions of people that are perfectly content waiting for oil and gas to be depleted before they start thinking about of wanting to turn a different direction, and that is the real bust for me.

I can see your point here, but right now, the energy produce by wind and solar is 2 and 3 times more expensive respectivly?

What if instead of spending billions on green energy companies that go broke, because they have no customers

http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/obamas-green-energy-handouts-costing-billions/

But instaed of that, why don't we use a reasonalbe amount of money to make grants to are great universities to have them study and prefect a for of green energy that would be cheaper that fossil fuels. That would be spending we all could agree on.

Peter1469
12-30-2012, 07:04 AM
I can see your point here, but right now, the energy produce by wind and solar is 2 and 3 times more expensive respectivly?

What if instead of spending billions on green energy companies that go broke, because they have no customers

http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/obamas-green-energy-handouts-costing-billions/

But instaed of that, why don't we use a reasonalbe amount of money to make grants to are great universities to have them study and prefect a for of green energy that would be cheaper that fossil fuels. That would be spending we all could agree on.

Solar is cheap- the batteries to store solar energy is the expensive part. When I was stationed in the Sinai (1988) we used solar panels over our water pipes to make hot water. Very little cost, and very hot water. To take a shower I would have to put the hot water on very low and blast cold, just to not boil myself.

Battery costs are coming down.

zelmo1234
12-30-2012, 08:18 AM
Solar is cheap- the batteries to store solar energy is the expensive part. When I was stationed in the Sinai (1988) we used solar panels over our water pipes to make hot water. Very little cost, and very hot water. To take a shower I would have to put the hot water on very low and blast cold, just to not boil myself.

Battery costs are coming down.

Yet today it is still high when compared to Fossil fuels.

If you were to install a solar system with battery backup, you would never live long enough to see a pay off.

Now there are many things that are working look at all of the solar devices that we have today. Almost all of my accent lighting aroung my yard is solar. they are the same price as electric lights when you consider cost of wiring and they appear to last a long time. Great, but to install a solar system for my home, I would never see a benifit. Someday it may change.

But this is exactly why President Obama said that the cost of fossil fuel energy "must necessarily skyrocket" because to have a chance they have to narrow the gap.

Peter1469
12-30-2012, 08:24 AM
Yet today it is still high when compared to Fossil fuels.

If you were to install a solar system with battery backup, you would never live long enough to see a pay off.

Now there are many things that are working look at all of the solar devices that we have today. Almost all of my accent lighting aroung my yard is solar. they are the same price as electric lights when you consider cost of wiring and they appear to last a long time. Great, but to install a solar system for my home, I would never see a benifit. Someday it may change.

But this is exactly why President Obama said that the cost of fossil fuel energy "must necessarily skyrocket" because to have a chance they have to narrow the gap.


I said the battery backup is the expensive part. If you built a house with the water pipes in the attack, with a solar panel over them, the cost would be minimal and the hot water would be free.

zelmo1234
12-30-2012, 08:35 AM
I said the battery backup is the expensive part. If you built a house with the water pipes in the attack, with a solar panel over them, the cost would be minimal and the hot water would be free.

Maybe where you live that would be true, In MI we have this white stuff for 4 to 5 months of the year that screws things up. So I would have to have a regular hot water heating system.

And then the cost of the system

http://mddall.com/sbss/0404.htm in a quick search this it the least expensive that I could find, figure about a thoudand dollars to install.

Now my natural gas hot water heaters energy guide says it uses 174 dollars a year, but natural gas prices have come down and I do have 2 of them So say 350 per year. and that the solar system will handle it with one system, which is doubtful.

But if that was the case and I had no maintenence costs. it woudl take almost 14 years for me to see any savings? plus I would have to have a backup for the winter. thus I would not live long enough to see any savings.

Now I might feel really good about being a green person, and that is great, but we are not to the point of having cheap green energy yet.

Mainecoons
12-30-2012, 08:47 AM
You don't need battery backup if your solar system is synced to the local utility. That's how most solar systems are set up. If there is no utility, then you need a battery backup.

They install these systems all the time in central Mexico where the sun shines 320 days per year. Electricity is gawd-awful expensive too, so the pay back time is like 5 years.

zelmo1234
12-30-2012, 01:44 PM
Thus the cost of fossil fuel energy must necessarily skyrocket?

KC
12-30-2012, 02:20 PM
How many wars have we fought over oil? Why not speed the process of creating a competitor? And if we really wanted to be aggressive about it, we could surplant oil and cause the devastation of the ME without firing a shot.

Without the government taking such a high stake in America's energy, we wouldn't have the wars, the subsidies, the ethanol requirements, etc. I don't think oil would have the monopoly it does today if the government would take a step back.

Peter1469
12-30-2012, 03:48 PM
Without any regulation, Big Oil will only continue its monopoly on transportation fuels.

Deadwood
12-30-2012, 06:22 PM
Is there anything up there on the first two posts that you agree with or like?

To be honest with you I did not get very far past the opening paragraph.

I know it is the school-taught concept that the "New Deal" "led" the United States out of the depression. However, the facts speak otherwise. There was not "a" depression, but a depression following the stock market crash, then recover, then another depression; in all there were three. While Europe was recovering, the US was wallowing in continued recessionary spiral.

There is a huge school of economic discourse today that suggests the "New Deal" actually delayed a natural recovery. It also was extremely costly in terms of the economic benefits both to individuals at the time and down stream.

In any event, it was the need to ramp up war time production and then America's entry into WWII that "solved" the economic crisis.

With the piece based on a questionable if not false premise there was no need to go further. Besides, the "green" movement got hijacked by the extreme left when the Berlin Wall came down. Global Warming now employs about 6 million people world wide. It is no longer an ecological issue, but a political movement...as is anything "green".

Chloe
01-11-2013, 12:30 PM
To be honest with you I did not get very far past the opening paragraph.

I know it is the school-taught concept that the "New Deal" "led" the United States out of the depression. However, the facts speak otherwise. There was not "a" depression, but a depression following the stock market crash, then recover, then another depression; in all there were three. While Europe was recovering, the US was wallowing in continued recessionary spiral.

There is a huge school of economic discourse today that suggests the "New Deal" actually delayed a natural recovery. It also was extremely costly in terms of the economic benefits both to individuals at the time and down stream.

In any event, it was the need to ramp up war time production and then America's entry into WWII that "solved" the economic crisis.

With the piece based on a questionable if not false premise there was no need to go further. Besides, the "green" movement got hijacked by the extreme left when the Berlin Wall came down. Global Warming now employs about 6 million people world wide. It is no longer an ecological issue, but a political movement...as is anything "green".

I don't disagree that green issues have a lot of politics around them but I do think that without some of the political attachments it would be very difficult for anything to happen to help protect the environment in many cases. For example I am registered with the Pacific Green Party here in Oregon because it provides me with a group of like minded people that share a lot of my own beliefs. But also with that comes a lot of organization, and without the organization of that group and putting their efforts towards issues then a lot of important things could go ignored in my opinion. It's not perfect but I can relate to that party more than the democrats or republicans. Without it then I'd just be an ignored democrat fringe kook or something.