New Leadership?
December 18th, 2002 - 12:15 am
Tom Friedman is looking for a new kind of Democrat:
Right now the Bush bumper sticker reads: “You Can Have It All: Guns, Butter, War With Iraq, Tax Cuts & Humvees.” This is nonsense. America has never won a war without the public’s being enlisted and summoned to sacrifice. Is there a Democrat ready to push for a crash oil conservation program and development of renewable energy alternatives
Sounds great in theory. But Kyoto and Alt Energy silliness is all you are likely to get from this wish list. Subsidies and tarriffs are not going anywhere if the Dems win in 2004. A 2nd termer no longer interested in reelection is most likely to oppose these practices, to the extent that the Executive Branch has any discretion.
I thought W already threw the gauntlet down to the euros for the next DOHA round. All tariffs down to 15 %. We’re at 21%(?), but EU’s in the low 30s. Already gnashing of teeth.
Besides, whoever is pres can try to cut subsidies, but Farm Bill, anyone?
Sugar? Chicago used to be the candy king. Even Bill Daley as Commerce Sec couldn’t cut the sugar subsidies to help Richard II and Chicago retain that title.
Lifesavers are now made in Canada and Mexico because world market sugar is about 15c a # less than here. And I have no doubts that if Wrigley bot Hershey’s, some production would have been moved. Of course, that could have really been the wake-up call the country needed, but, alas…
What war? You mean when we stirred up the rubble in Afganistan over a year ago?
Gore lost me when he backed down on his statements from EARTH IN THE BALANCE. Showed no integrity when it came to SUV voters. I suspect a lot of Dems are thinking about all the SUV voters right now.
Imagine if the government bought solar equipment for schools and allowed the schools to not only have free power, but to sell power back to the local power grid and profit from it. Expand that to hospitals and govenrment buildings and give tax incentives to homeowners doing the same thing.
A policy of tax incentives for distributed solar power and government spending to jumpstart it could spur an industry. The best thing is decentralized power is impossible for terrorists to target. Its mean, its green, and it can help us win the war on terror. What’s not to like?
Umm, sometimes in greater Chicagoland, one won’t see the sun for 10-15 days or more. One thing about solar that always surprised me in southern CA. It wasn’t mandated in the 70s. All that building over the past 30 years and bupkus, especially being so green out there.
Well, considering it was only a few years ago that they’ve managed to produce solar cells capable of generating enough energy to equal the cost of resources to make the cells in the first place, it’s a very good thing for California that solar power hasn’t been forced on it.
Suggestion: Find out the average (just the average, no worries about peak values) daily power usage of, say, a high school. Now figure out how many square feet of photovoltaic panels you would need to produce that power, using a 12-hour day. Would you have to rent adjacent land to have enough room, or would the roof and football field be enough?
Now factor in cloudy and rainy days.
Show your math, and we can talk about solar-powered off-the-grid-schools, much less net-producing schools.
Uh, Vodkaman, you dissappoint. You endorse everything Friedman said except for the Kyoto stuff? Oh come on.
First off, tarriffs are much more likely to be supported by Democrats (Gore & Clinton excepted) than Republicans (notwithstanding Buchanon and his ilk). This has been the case for 30 some odd years. Because, to Dems, tariffs protect union jobs. Or at least in their fantasy world it does. Sure, Bush has been hypocritical on this front, but it was blind political calculations. You know, one fight at a time, making the war on terror (and thus win Pennsylvania politician’s support) a priority and what not. I’m not excusing it. But, his proposals for massive free trade is far more aligned with MOST Republicans than Dems. So, Friedman is drunk on that point.
Second, Population controls? Are you kidding me? What is Friedman talking about? Federal funding for poor idealogical NGO like Planned Parenthood? Or funding for whatever overly bureucratic plan the U.N. thinks will work? You are typically a libertarian style supporter of the free market, so I would think that you know the single biggest way of controlling population is by exporting western democracy, woman’s rights and capitalism. No greater break on population increase has been found. Free condoms won’t do it. Economic growth will. That’s a fact.
The support for renewable industries and conservation is a nice idea, but, again, it’s that whole free market thing. That’s about the only thing in Friedman’s statement that has appeal and is workable in the modern political context. The rest of the stuff would require Dems being either more like Republicans, or ditching most of the bad policy solutions that Dems already have for most of what he was talking about.
Being a political free agent is fine and Lieberman certainly looks like the most palatable of the field. But, surely you don’t think Friedman is that on the mark, do you?
I remember our last (low) energy Democratic President, Jimmah Carter. He sat in his little Jimmah rocker with his little Jimmah sweater and asked us all to freeze in the dark.
He was also the one who blew millions on a government boondoggle called synfuels which produced zero new energy. It was a total disaster.
Ronald Reagan saved the country.
This platform would appeal to whom exactly?
1) vigorous war on terror – A lot (possibly a majority) of dems will not like that.
2) “is there a Democrat ready to take on farm subsidies and textile tariffs?” uh, no. Political suicide.
3) renewable energy. Synfuels anyone? If you have an hour, I’ll tell you about the folks I know who put coal dust in a big blender to change it into a “synthetic fuel” and reap huge subsidies. Believe it or not, this Carter-era boondoggle is still with us.
4) U.S. support for global population controls? would that be using my tax money for abortion? Lots and lots of folks won’t like that. Russ Goble (see above) has a more realistic view here.
Enjoy the fall, VP.
The Democratic movers and shakers prefer Kerry because he can self-finance through the primaries.
I prefer Republicans to Democrats on the environment because Democratic Greens look at SUVs like Operation Rescue looks at abortion clinics.
Greens are a bigger threat to my freedom that the fundies are with abortion.
So are the Drug-warriors come to that, but most people haven’t bought into legalization yet so I’m stuck with them in both parties.
Solar power is fine if you want to heat a pool…but it isn’t quite as simple as you think. California would have done so long ago if it were viable.
Solar grids can’t produce enough megawattage to service California’s industrial and business needs. It isn’t schools, state, federal buildings or homes that suck the megawatts…it’s irrigation, data, and industry…aka as employers.
California grows a significant percentage of the nations veggie/salad crop which are irrigated by electric pumps and stored in reefer warehouses for shipping. Greenhouses and reefers that span 10-20 acres are not uncommon in the Imperial and Salinas valley.
Water and waste removal are heavy power consumers. Water for industrial and home use is moved the length of the state daily…by electric pumps.
It has been estimated that the Internet alone is responsible for a 50% increase in power consumption in CA since 1996. Data centers/server farms consume huge amounts of power. There are server farms that cover entire city blocks in the Valley. There are major bank data centers that service a large part of the Western US.
Ca produces cars, trucks, aircraft and electronics. The HP plant in Palo Alto has it’s own PG&E substation. The ports also burn megawattage moving the consumer goods that you are placing under your Christmas tree.
There are major research facilities across the state that are heavy consumers of power.
Solar is not an option for heavily populated states.
Wind on the other hand is viable in CA, but the wind machines kill protected raptors and the maintenance roads impact the habitat much like logging roads impact the forest. The California Coastal Commission is not keen to permit more windmills in the fairly pristine high wind areas of the coast. The high mountain passes are federal lands that are also off-limits to road building.
Here is a link if you’re interested:
http://www.caiso.com/
BTW- CA will need 31,339 MEGAWATTS of power today.
Lieberman does not stand a chance in the Democratic primaries because he is too far to the right of the Democratic activists who go to caucuses and vote in primaries. On just about every question — the war, the economy, abortion, affirmative action, accounting reform, school choice — he offends the traditional Democratic consensus.
Then there’s the reality of the nominating gauntlet. He has zero clout with unions, is my understanding, and so will crater in Iowa. In New Hampshire, he faces the popular and leading John Kerry from next door. (Whoever said Kerry will self-finance is wrong. It’s Mrs. Heinz’s money, not his, as she makes clear in an infamous interview with the Washington Post, and he’s said “they’ll” dip into it if “they’re attacked.”) And in South Carolina, Lieberman will be competing with the winner of New Hampshire (likely Kerry, maybe Howard Dean, Dick Gephardt, or Tom Daschle — one of whom will win Iowa) and John Edwards, if he chooses to run. Where’s his victory primary early on?
Joe L’s best shot at national office was as vice presidential running mate, which is why he said he would not run for prez if Gore did. He knows full well how unpalatable his views are to the nominating process. He’s out of the race after South Carolina.
Joe Lieberman? How could you vote for him after he systematically changed positions on every issue after accepting the VEEP nomination. I can understand voting for him prior to 2000, but after that flip flop extravaganza, I could never trust the man.
you are a babe.
The candidates for alternative energy (wind, solar, biomass) are low energy density which forces a large footprint to get significant energy output. That is an imposition on the environment.
Ideally, you would want an energy source with a high energy density and no carbon emissions. The environmental impact would be low.
Go nuclear. It’s the environmentally friendly thing to do.
[Homer]
That’s nuculer…nuculer.
[/Homer]
Imagine if the government bought solar equipment for schools and allowed the schools to not only have free power, but to sell power back to the local power grid and profit from it.
Wait a minute — you want the government, which is funded by tax money, to use that money to buy and give equipment to the schools, which are also funded by tax money, then sell surplus power (from solar energy! hahahahahaha!) back to a private concern for profit, transferring more money to the government? Egads.
Well, considering it was only a few years ago that they’ve managed to produce solar cells capable of generating enough energy to equal the cost of resources to make the cells in the first place, it’s a very good thing for California that solar power hasn’t been forced on it.
Passive solar already works fine for heating and hot water, was used all over Southern CA before WWII. Passive solar can work well in cold areas without lots of sunshine. Read up on it.
the single biggest way of controlling population is by exporting western democracy, woman’s rights and capitalism.
Intersting detail – a study found that the most important factors in reducing population growth were easy access to low-cost birth control and women feeling it’s their own decision about when to have kids (call it feminism, self-empowerment or whatever). Consistently, around the globe, when these two factors are present, women have 2-3 kids instead of 7-8. Regardless of education, wealth, rural urban, economic system.
Texas is making money with wind power. West TX is just the right setting – large, empty, steady wind blows all day long.
http://www.glo.state.tx.us/energy/sustain/wind.html
http://www.eren.doe.gov/greenpower/tnmp_0401_pr.html