Some people may have not seen this yet, but the longest acting US Senator, Ted Stevens, was found guilty of seven counts of federal corruption. Stevens' crimes came about from him taking bribes and gifts from a certain energy consulting firm, of which I have a little personal knowledge. The executives of this firm have already admitted to giving over $250,000 in gifts and services to Senator (soon to be ex-Senator) Stevens.
The great tie-in here is that a certain Alaskan Vice-Presidential candidate was a director of Stevens' 527 group, an independent political group capable of legally raising unlimited funds from corporate donors. Whether Stevens simply had his name on this group, or whether he used it to raise funds or to take bribes is unknown, and not my purpose here. What I want to suggest is a bit of a betting line. First, what are the odds that the seven felonious counts against Senator Stevens net him zero jail time? What are the odds that a Republican victory in the Presidential race earns the good Senator a Presidential Pardons? I'd put the former at about 4:1 and the latter at about 3:2
That is just a bit unjust considering the bribes Stevens took were of the sole purpose of passing legislation that would make it easier for the unnamed energy firm to win billion dollar oil contracts, but as we all know, energy and justice rarely meet on a level ground.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Monday, October 20, 2008
Government Subsidies are for Suckers
Everyone likes to get money from the government, unfortunately that money has to come from somewhere, and everyone with a taxable income knows where that is. The government has always taken it upon themselves to take money from many, an channel it to a few by way of government subsidies. Whether it be for a crop that lacks market value to sustain itself, or a certain type of vehicle that the government wishes to press upon the nation, it seems the feds are always interfering with the free market economy.
Two of the largest (by way of media attention) government subsidies that are sneaking there way into federal tax plans of the next term are for hybrid vehicles and corn for ethanol. Barack Obama supports both of these subsidies, and the average American looks at this and thinks, "Wow, Obama really cares about our environment and wants to reduce our dependence on foreign oil." This is crap, what the American should be thinking is, "Barack Obama is trying to change the face of American economics, and bail out auto companies who lacked the forward thinking to create vehicles with reliable fuel economy when the rest of the world was reading the signs." Detroit has been behind the times before, when the gas crisis hit in the 70's and Americans turned to fuel efficient Japanese vehicles for the first time. This crippled the car market in North America for decades to come. Because Foreign auto makers had gotten a 5-10 year jump on America in terms of efficient cars, American auto makers were forced to play catch up, the result being the shoddy piles of crap that Detroit put out in the 80's and into the early 90's.
Somehow American automakers survived, actually they survived due to America's love for trucks. Detroit limped by because no matter how they got their asses kicked in the car market, they always had their trucks to fall back on. Unfortunately this time, their trucks are not bailing them out, because they decided to take Americas love for trucks, and make large SUVs to go along with them, completely ignoring the Japanese car companies, which were creating hybrids ten years ago, and European manufacturers, which were creating fuel efficient diesel vehicles, which come close to matching the performance of sports cars (A side note, the American LeMans Championship manufacturer's cup was won this year by Audi, which was racing cars fitted with V-10 turbo-diesels).
What did America do, ignored market trends and decided they knew what Americans wanted. Now they are all but bankrupt, and a decade behind Japan and Europe in making fuel-efficient vehicles. This is where Obama wants to come in. He wants to give subsidies to Americans so that we will buy the more expensive, less reliable, American hybrid cars, so that Detroit can keep its shirt. Frankly, that's Bullshit. I am going to buy whatever car I feel is best, and I don't want my tax money being spent so that bad business men can turn a profit. Let Darwinism reign through a free-market economy. The economics are quite simple, if fuel is expensive, people will buy fuel-efficient cars, and those companies which make the best cars will have the highest sales. It is time for corporate America to stand on its own two feet, say "NO" to government subsidies.
Two of the largest (by way of media attention) government subsidies that are sneaking there way into federal tax plans of the next term are for hybrid vehicles and corn for ethanol. Barack Obama supports both of these subsidies, and the average American looks at this and thinks, "Wow, Obama really cares about our environment and wants to reduce our dependence on foreign oil." This is crap, what the American should be thinking is, "Barack Obama is trying to change the face of American economics, and bail out auto companies who lacked the forward thinking to create vehicles with reliable fuel economy when the rest of the world was reading the signs." Detroit has been behind the times before, when the gas crisis hit in the 70's and Americans turned to fuel efficient Japanese vehicles for the first time. This crippled the car market in North America for decades to come. Because Foreign auto makers had gotten a 5-10 year jump on America in terms of efficient cars, American auto makers were forced to play catch up, the result being the shoddy piles of crap that Detroit put out in the 80's and into the early 90's.
Somehow American automakers survived, actually they survived due to America's love for trucks. Detroit limped by because no matter how they got their asses kicked in the car market, they always had their trucks to fall back on. Unfortunately this time, their trucks are not bailing them out, because they decided to take Americas love for trucks, and make large SUVs to go along with them, completely ignoring the Japanese car companies, which were creating hybrids ten years ago, and European manufacturers, which were creating fuel efficient diesel vehicles, which come close to matching the performance of sports cars (A side note, the American LeMans Championship manufacturer's cup was won this year by Audi, which was racing cars fitted with V-10 turbo-diesels).
What did America do, ignored market trends and decided they knew what Americans wanted. Now they are all but bankrupt, and a decade behind Japan and Europe in making fuel-efficient vehicles. This is where Obama wants to come in. He wants to give subsidies to Americans so that we will buy the more expensive, less reliable, American hybrid cars, so that Detroit can keep its shirt. Frankly, that's Bullshit. I am going to buy whatever car I feel is best, and I don't want my tax money being spent so that bad business men can turn a profit. Let Darwinism reign through a free-market economy. The economics are quite simple, if fuel is expensive, people will buy fuel-efficient cars, and those companies which make the best cars will have the highest sales. It is time for corporate America to stand on its own two feet, say "NO" to government subsidies.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
1000+ Words on Transition
I had my first girlfriend when I was in fourth grade. Her name was Adrienne, and I am certain that she was very cute by fourth grade standards. I transferred schools after third grade because my parents moved because of new jobs. I was finally at a bigger school (my first school was less than 100 students K-8, and I was almost always in the same classes as my older brother), which meant I had a chance to go and make friends in peer groups that were mine alone. I really had no interest in girls at that age, but it seemed that all the boys with whom I was trying to make friends were very interested in the opposite sex and it was, therefore, trendy to have a girlfriend. The relationship between Adrienne and I was typical for the age, we broke up and got back together three or four times a week, sometimes multiple times per day. It didn't matter, her role was basically to sit with all the other girlfriends and watch me play basketball with my friends, though she did give me my very first kiss on the buss back from a class field trip. This was the beginning of a very destructive trend for me.
In sixth grade I was very into girls. I still hung out with my friends, but the peer group was much more exclusive because everyone was having "makeout parties", and you were not invited unless you had a significant other. This went on for all of sixth grade, and I am fairly certain that I had at least five different dates to said makeout parties. Then my perception changed.
I moved again after sixth grade and made friends with a kid named Brian. Brian did not care for the status quo, in fact he abhorred it. This attitude suited me well because I was, at the time, very angry to have moved away from my friends and makeout partners. Brian and I spent our days at school teasing nerdy kids (I was in all the GATE classes, so there was no shortage) and making girls cry by calling them various names and being outright mean. I did not do much outside of school for the most part. This trend continued until the end of eight grade when I made a couple new friends that were, again, interested in girls. I would like to take this opportunity to point out that I was not without a girlfriend during this time, in fact, I had very pretty girlfriends, but I had no interest in spending any time with them outside of school.
As a freshman in high school, I wanted to meet girls, but the puberty fairy had apparently left me behind. I managed to cling on to one girl at the end of my freshmen year and that lasted about half of the summer. The rest of my high school days were spent, I assume like the rest of my male peers, attempting to find girls who would help me lose my virginity. This was a losing battle until I was 18 and a senior in high school. I had met a girl though work and we ended up dating for about three and a half years. I admit that I did not have any interest in being with her after one year, but I was far too big of a coward to face the awkwardness of work and our mutual friends if we broke up.
I was ready, after three and a half years, to transfer schools. Rather than choosing Berkeley, Oregon State, or another California or Oregon school to which I was accepted, I chose to go as far away as possible, to make it logically impossible to continue my relationship. In shorter words, I ran because I did not want to be with her and did not want to tell her.
You can ask yourself now, or maybe you already did two or three times, why the hell this matters. The answer is that for you it doesn't, but to me it is the foundation of every wrong I have ever committed toward a female since.
Since the day I left the west coast, every relationship I have been in has served the purpose of fitting in. Every one night stand has been to prove myself to my friends in high school who never had a problem finding a slutty girl to cuddle up with. If I had a girlfriend, it was to serve the purpose of company, so as not to feel lonely, or has been someone who I wanted to have a one night stand with, but of whom I was too cowardly to rid myself. I am easily infatuated, so it was not hard to tell girlfriends that I loved them, in fact, I believed it myself. It is far easier to lie to one's self than anyone imagines, and it is only after you tire of the person that you finally realize that you were lying all along.
About two years ago I met a girl, much younger than I, who was everything I was not. She was probably the sweetest and most selfless person I have ever met. I loved her with all my heart, and I think I always will to some degree, but she was not right for me. I could finally see clearly a future between two people, one of them being me, and she was not the other. It broke my heart to end it, and I often think selfishly of making contact with her, but wiser people than I (women) have advised me not to, and I feel they are correct. The only solace I take from this is that I finally know what I want, and I finally want to be with someone special, not for status, not for show, not for revenge, not for spite, but for me and for her.
Unfortunately, I spent much of my formidable years lying so often that I never let myself see the truth. I see now how spectacular many of the women I dated were, and I wish that I could have a chance to show them how great they are and hope that I get another chance to perhaps make these feelings mean something. If I do not receive that chance I have committed myself to the fact that it is deserved, and can do nothing about it. I can only hope that this realization can prevent me from backsliding into the same lifestyle and attitude which put me in this very spot.
In sixth grade I was very into girls. I still hung out with my friends, but the peer group was much more exclusive because everyone was having "makeout parties", and you were not invited unless you had a significant other. This went on for all of sixth grade, and I am fairly certain that I had at least five different dates to said makeout parties. Then my perception changed.
I moved again after sixth grade and made friends with a kid named Brian. Brian did not care for the status quo, in fact he abhorred it. This attitude suited me well because I was, at the time, very angry to have moved away from my friends and makeout partners. Brian and I spent our days at school teasing nerdy kids (I was in all the GATE classes, so there was no shortage) and making girls cry by calling them various names and being outright mean. I did not do much outside of school for the most part. This trend continued until the end of eight grade when I made a couple new friends that were, again, interested in girls. I would like to take this opportunity to point out that I was not without a girlfriend during this time, in fact, I had very pretty girlfriends, but I had no interest in spending any time with them outside of school.
As a freshman in high school, I wanted to meet girls, but the puberty fairy had apparently left me behind. I managed to cling on to one girl at the end of my freshmen year and that lasted about half of the summer. The rest of my high school days were spent, I assume like the rest of my male peers, attempting to find girls who would help me lose my virginity. This was a losing battle until I was 18 and a senior in high school. I had met a girl though work and we ended up dating for about three and a half years. I admit that I did not have any interest in being with her after one year, but I was far too big of a coward to face the awkwardness of work and our mutual friends if we broke up.
I was ready, after three and a half years, to transfer schools. Rather than choosing Berkeley, Oregon State, or another California or Oregon school to which I was accepted, I chose to go as far away as possible, to make it logically impossible to continue my relationship. In shorter words, I ran because I did not want to be with her and did not want to tell her.
You can ask yourself now, or maybe you already did two or three times, why the hell this matters. The answer is that for you it doesn't, but to me it is the foundation of every wrong I have ever committed toward a female since.
Since the day I left the west coast, every relationship I have been in has served the purpose of fitting in. Every one night stand has been to prove myself to my friends in high school who never had a problem finding a slutty girl to cuddle up with. If I had a girlfriend, it was to serve the purpose of company, so as not to feel lonely, or has been someone who I wanted to have a one night stand with, but of whom I was too cowardly to rid myself. I am easily infatuated, so it was not hard to tell girlfriends that I loved them, in fact, I believed it myself. It is far easier to lie to one's self than anyone imagines, and it is only after you tire of the person that you finally realize that you were lying all along.
About two years ago I met a girl, much younger than I, who was everything I was not. She was probably the sweetest and most selfless person I have ever met. I loved her with all my heart, and I think I always will to some degree, but she was not right for me. I could finally see clearly a future between two people, one of them being me, and she was not the other. It broke my heart to end it, and I often think selfishly of making contact with her, but wiser people than I (women) have advised me not to, and I feel they are correct. The only solace I take from this is that I finally know what I want, and I finally want to be with someone special, not for status, not for show, not for revenge, not for spite, but for me and for her.
Unfortunately, I spent much of my formidable years lying so often that I never let myself see the truth. I see now how spectacular many of the women I dated were, and I wish that I could have a chance to show them how great they are and hope that I get another chance to perhaps make these feelings mean something. If I do not receive that chance I have committed myself to the fact that it is deserved, and can do nothing about it. I can only hope that this realization can prevent me from backsliding into the same lifestyle and attitude which put me in this very spot.
This is Allen Garrick, and I Approved this Message
I promise I will stop griping about politicans soon, but I caught the tail end of Tim Robbins guest spot on the Jon Stewart Show last night. Tim Robbins has long been one of my favorite actors, and though I disagree with some of his political views, he is normally very insightful and educated in his opinions. The first thing I heard him say as I flipped through the channel was, "Wouldn't it be nice to do an interview and not have to answer the questions you were asked?" I knew immediately he was talking about one of the debates (unlikely the latest one since the show was taped earlier in the day). Neither candidate has yet answered the question they were asked. The moderator tried and tried to keep them on topic, but the same answers kept being repeated over and over.
Moderator: Senator McCain, how long would it take to fix Social Security?
McCain: Fixing Social Security is not hard, you just need a president who can work on both sides of the aisle, like myself and not get cuaght up in earmarked spending, like Senator Obama.
Moderator: Senator Obama, due to the current financial crisis, which of your planned spending programs may have to be put on hold until we sort out the economy?
Obama: We need a healthcare system that all people can afford, and we need to make college more affordable for the middle income Americans.
I think they need to get the moderator from the question and answer protion of the academic decathlon in Billy Madison. That way when either candidate responds, the moderator can say, "Senator, not only did you not answer the question I asked you, but you rambled on off topic for three minutes past the one minute limit which was proposed by your own campaign managers. As a result, voters in key states are now dumber and less interested in this election. I hereby disqualify you from the debate, your position will be replaced by Ralph Nader, who has been patiently eating granola and weaving ties made of hemp in the next room".
Moderator: Senator McCain, how long would it take to fix Social Security?
McCain: Fixing Social Security is not hard, you just need a president who can work on both sides of the aisle, like myself and not get cuaght up in earmarked spending, like Senator Obama.
Moderator: Senator Obama, due to the current financial crisis, which of your planned spending programs may have to be put on hold until we sort out the economy?
Obama: We need a healthcare system that all people can afford, and we need to make college more affordable for the middle income Americans.
I think they need to get the moderator from the question and answer protion of the academic decathlon in Billy Madison. That way when either candidate responds, the moderator can say, "Senator, not only did you not answer the question I asked you, but you rambled on off topic for three minutes past the one minute limit which was proposed by your own campaign managers. As a result, voters in key states are now dumber and less interested in this election. I hereby disqualify you from the debate, your position will be replaced by Ralph Nader, who has been patiently eating granola and weaving ties made of hemp in the next room".
Domestic Energy
Having watched as much of the second presidential debate as I could stomach, I decided it was time to put some thoughts on paper. Please do not make me out to be a political analyst, but I can sense bullshit better than most and considering the current economic situation of our fine country, I need to get this out.
One of the biggest issues of this presidential election is energy. This is a topic that is near and dear to my heart, as I both work primarily for energy companies and also pay a premium for this energy. I will try my best to stay on topic and not venture into secondary costs of energy (the largest of which is the lives of American soldiers), because this just adds more opinions and more reason for you to stop reading. Below I will address both home/commercial use energy and automotive energy and the real topics and strategies our government should be taking, as compared to the piles of crap that get shoveled to us through the media. The point I wish to make is that we must look at viable options rather than pipe dreams. If someone shows you an alternative to fossil fuel in your vehicle you must ask if this is a viable solution to ALL vehicles; if not, perhaps it is unwise to spend billions of government dollars funding this non-solution while the money could be better spent researching and developing the real solution. Please do not misinterpret this as my argument against certain technologies, I believe that clean technologies should be first on our lists, but I believe that it is more important to focus our time and money on finding a true solution rather than a pretty solution.
That being said, I am sure at this point anyone who has listened to any political analysis recently has heard the term "Alternative Energy" in regards to domestic energy supplies. So I will start by discussing alternative energy sources as they pertain to our present and our future. What should I start with, Wind? Geothermal? Hydroelectric? Solar? As none of these meet my definition of an alternative energy source, perhaps I should start there. When I think of the term alternative, I think of a viable replacement, such as "substitute margarine for butter", in which you are replacing one fat source with one of similar if not equal value. The truth is that most of the aforementioned energy sources are not an approximate, much less, an equal substitute for the one energy source of which we are trying to rid ourselves, fossil fuels. The benefit of fossil fueled power plants are that they can be erected virtually anywhere. Wind, Geothermal, and Hydroelectric plants are very much dependent on specific geographic locations, which do not make them viable for a replacement for all fossil fueled plants. Solar plants, as well, are best suited for certain locations and also take up nearly 100 times more land acreage per megawatt of power than current fossil fueled plants.
Where do we go for our power then? We have to go nuclear. The US already contains many nuclear power plants, but we have not built a new one in some time. The problem being the disposal of the nuclear waste, the danger of a meltdown, and also the heat waste associated with cooling water. I am not a nuclear engineer, and I do not have the answers for the waste, and I apologize for that, as it is the biggest weakness of my argument. I will dispel it by saying that this is why we need more government funding and attention on nuclear, as I am sure we can figure something out. As far as danger and cooling water, the technology of nuclear power has grown quite a bit since the last plant was built (I do not have dates, please feel free to tell me, though I am quite certain it was a while ago, like before I was born). The fact I would like to make on nuclear is that it has the greatest power output per acre and can be built virtually anywhere in the country, and is, therefore, capable of replacing all domestic fossil fuel power plants.
Now we move on to our dependence on motor vehicles, which I despise. I despise the suburban sprawl of the modern US, but I will bite my tongue for now as I feel it is here to stay and important to move past idealism and find a solution to real problems. If the statistics used by the politicians on television are correct, and I kind of doubt it, but I will let it slide, we consume 25% of the world’s oil production yet produce only 6% ourselves. In order to eliminate our dependency on foreign oil we need only apply simple logic, increase domestic production or reduce consumption. The key here is to realize two things: first, all oil reserves are finite, meaning that increasing our production would not solve the problem forever (assuming we have the domestic oil to even reach our current needs); second, any plan we put into action to produce new vehicles with little or no dependence on petroleum will take time to develop and to replace the current cars on the road.
I move forward with those two assumptions in mind. We must both increase domestic production, as well as reduce current consumption trends. There are certain topics along the consumption front which I do not currently have the time or energy to include, such as public transportation, of which I am a huge proponent, but I simply do not have time. Again, let us start with alternative energy as far as cars are concerned. Ethanol and other biofuels are not a viable alternative to petroleum as I have defined it earlier. We must concentrate on energy sources which are renewable on a large scale, of which I currently see only electric as a current viable technology (assuming that the electricity will come from non-fossil fuel sources, of course). Electric cars are currently expensive and all of the technological funding is going towards hybrids, because that is the current buzzword. Hybrids are great, but the technology is already developed, and the current state of the petroleum market is already driving both manufacture and sales of hybrid vehicles. It is important for any government funding to stay ahead of the market, in order to keep technology a step ahead of energy needs and market prices. Car manufacturers should now be putting hybrid technology into all vehicles, and shifting their research budgets towards electric. It will take time to get that technology commercially viable, and in the meantime, we can reduce our current consumption.
In the meantime, we need to maximize our domestic oil production, but must do so only as a temporary fix. We must have the plans in place to reduce virtually all of our consumption, and not just increase production as a band-aid for the current crisis. Just remember that band-aid only work if you manage to get the blood to clot underneath, and right now we are suffering from hemophilia.
I want to address one more thing regarding this topic, and I left it to the end because it is political, and I wanted to leave it to last because this is where many of you will tune out. We also need to get our government to set real laws that will force automakers to produce the vehicles we need to gain our petroleum independence. EPA recently passed a law to increase to average gas mileage of all cars sold in the US; a great step until you see how sot they made it. Conditions were put into the law that allows for government subsidies for the automakers (for technology that is already widely used) and also allows for automakers to file for an extension if they feel that they cannot make the deadlines. US automakers have filed for both government funding and extensions, though they have nearly eight years to comply, and have vehicles that currently meet the standard.
I will say right now that I am not a fan of big government, but until they put a little spine in their laws concerning fossil fuels, we, as the public, will continue to be the ones who pay the most and pay the longest for fuel prices.
One of the biggest issues of this presidential election is energy. This is a topic that is near and dear to my heart, as I both work primarily for energy companies and also pay a premium for this energy. I will try my best to stay on topic and not venture into secondary costs of energy (the largest of which is the lives of American soldiers), because this just adds more opinions and more reason for you to stop reading. Below I will address both home/commercial use energy and automotive energy and the real topics and strategies our government should be taking, as compared to the piles of crap that get shoveled to us through the media. The point I wish to make is that we must look at viable options rather than pipe dreams. If someone shows you an alternative to fossil fuel in your vehicle you must ask if this is a viable solution to ALL vehicles; if not, perhaps it is unwise to spend billions of government dollars funding this non-solution while the money could be better spent researching and developing the real solution. Please do not misinterpret this as my argument against certain technologies, I believe that clean technologies should be first on our lists, but I believe that it is more important to focus our time and money on finding a true solution rather than a pretty solution.
That being said, I am sure at this point anyone who has listened to any political analysis recently has heard the term "Alternative Energy" in regards to domestic energy supplies. So I will start by discussing alternative energy sources as they pertain to our present and our future. What should I start with, Wind? Geothermal? Hydroelectric? Solar? As none of these meet my definition of an alternative energy source, perhaps I should start there. When I think of the term alternative, I think of a viable replacement, such as "substitute margarine for butter", in which you are replacing one fat source with one of similar if not equal value. The truth is that most of the aforementioned energy sources are not an approximate, much less, an equal substitute for the one energy source of which we are trying to rid ourselves, fossil fuels. The benefit of fossil fueled power plants are that they can be erected virtually anywhere. Wind, Geothermal, and Hydroelectric plants are very much dependent on specific geographic locations, which do not make them viable for a replacement for all fossil fueled plants. Solar plants, as well, are best suited for certain locations and also take up nearly 100 times more land acreage per megawatt of power than current fossil fueled plants.
Where do we go for our power then? We have to go nuclear. The US already contains many nuclear power plants, but we have not built a new one in some time. The problem being the disposal of the nuclear waste, the danger of a meltdown, and also the heat waste associated with cooling water. I am not a nuclear engineer, and I do not have the answers for the waste, and I apologize for that, as it is the biggest weakness of my argument. I will dispel it by saying that this is why we need more government funding and attention on nuclear, as I am sure we can figure something out. As far as danger and cooling water, the technology of nuclear power has grown quite a bit since the last plant was built (I do not have dates, please feel free to tell me, though I am quite certain it was a while ago, like before I was born). The fact I would like to make on nuclear is that it has the greatest power output per acre and can be built virtually anywhere in the country, and is, therefore, capable of replacing all domestic fossil fuel power plants.
Now we move on to our dependence on motor vehicles, which I despise. I despise the suburban sprawl of the modern US, but I will bite my tongue for now as I feel it is here to stay and important to move past idealism and find a solution to real problems. If the statistics used by the politicians on television are correct, and I kind of doubt it, but I will let it slide, we consume 25% of the world’s oil production yet produce only 6% ourselves. In order to eliminate our dependency on foreign oil we need only apply simple logic, increase domestic production or reduce consumption. The key here is to realize two things: first, all oil reserves are finite, meaning that increasing our production would not solve the problem forever (assuming we have the domestic oil to even reach our current needs); second, any plan we put into action to produce new vehicles with little or no dependence on petroleum will take time to develop and to replace the current cars on the road.
I move forward with those two assumptions in mind. We must both increase domestic production, as well as reduce current consumption trends. There are certain topics along the consumption front which I do not currently have the time or energy to include, such as public transportation, of which I am a huge proponent, but I simply do not have time. Again, let us start with alternative energy as far as cars are concerned. Ethanol and other biofuels are not a viable alternative to petroleum as I have defined it earlier. We must concentrate on energy sources which are renewable on a large scale, of which I currently see only electric as a current viable technology (assuming that the electricity will come from non-fossil fuel sources, of course). Electric cars are currently expensive and all of the technological funding is going towards hybrids, because that is the current buzzword. Hybrids are great, but the technology is already developed, and the current state of the petroleum market is already driving both manufacture and sales of hybrid vehicles. It is important for any government funding to stay ahead of the market, in order to keep technology a step ahead of energy needs and market prices. Car manufacturers should now be putting hybrid technology into all vehicles, and shifting their research budgets towards electric. It will take time to get that technology commercially viable, and in the meantime, we can reduce our current consumption.
In the meantime, we need to maximize our domestic oil production, but must do so only as a temporary fix. We must have the plans in place to reduce virtually all of our consumption, and not just increase production as a band-aid for the current crisis. Just remember that band-aid only work if you manage to get the blood to clot underneath, and right now we are suffering from hemophilia.
I want to address one more thing regarding this topic, and I left it to the end because it is political, and I wanted to leave it to last because this is where many of you will tune out. We also need to get our government to set real laws that will force automakers to produce the vehicles we need to gain our petroleum independence. EPA recently passed a law to increase to average gas mileage of all cars sold in the US; a great step until you see how sot they made it. Conditions were put into the law that allows for government subsidies for the automakers (for technology that is already widely used) and also allows for automakers to file for an extension if they feel that they cannot make the deadlines. US automakers have filed for both government funding and extensions, though they have nearly eight years to comply, and have vehicles that currently meet the standard.
I will say right now that I am not a fan of big government, but until they put a little spine in their laws concerning fossil fuels, we, as the public, will continue to be the ones who pay the most and pay the longest for fuel prices.
Intro
Due to my untimely surgery and subsequent time away from work, I have been spending much of my time thinking about things personal and public. What better way to document such things than put them in an online forum where people can tell me just how wrong they think I am about the world. I am not trying to make friends or enemies, just hopefully to create an ounce of insight into some issues for which I feel passionate. Thus ends the introduction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)