Changing one's mind
Perhaps John McCain's virulent green backdrop is not such a bad idea - keeps him out of this kind of trouble.
I agree meanwhile with descheloro on the subject of McCain's changes of position - they have to look convincing and driven by changed facts on the ground.
But also I sympathise with wesside01 - the flip-flopping accusations can be tiresome and miss the point that minds can change, and should in some circumstances - though I am not suggesting the drilling would really make any difference.
Nice discussion on compressed air too...
Hello, I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~33~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
The volunteers at the Obama rally seeking to keep two women with headscarves out of the picture were wrong to do so and an apolgy was rightly issued by the campaign. The issue is a sensitive one as evidenced by the recent pulling of the Rachael Ray Dunkin' Donuts advert over a scarf she was wearing. Some complained the scarf resembled terrorist garb. Even on our public television news, I remember an interview where Jim Lehrer noted that his choice of tie was assessed before going on air to ensure it did not show political bias (red or blue). Apparently it remains, to some extent at least, not who we are, but what we wear.
Complain about this comment
The problem is with the media's attitude to Muslims not the Obama campaign's per se. His events draw people of all types. The media can't handle Muslims, though. Worth mentioning too that McCain would love to have the problem of turning non-whites away from events. Or maybe not. In which case a bigger problem with the McCain campaign.
Complain about this comment
A domestic policy of drilling for for our own oil reserves in the US combined with stricter standards, on fuel efficiency, reduces oil consumption, thus reducing the demand for foreign oil, and when the supply exceeds the demand, the price that OPEC can demand must down.
Of course this is only going to work for a short time, because demand for fuel from India and China continues to soar and would soon exceed our reduction in demand for oil.
This short time must be used to develop new technologies and infrastructure to replace petroleum as an energy source.
If it works we will reduce, carbon emissions, have cleaner air and water, and reduce the flow of money to terrorists.
Complain about this comment
You're quite right, Rueben. I'm itching for the day when we can tell the Saudis, who sponsor Wahabbist extremism throughout the world, to bugger off.
/-_
Complain about this comment
Hey Justin and wesside01 l totally disagree with both of you and l think this politics you guys are playing here will backfire!!! Oh Yes the price of oil is $140 today but only a few months back it was around $80 to $88 and in january it went up to $100 for the first time in history!!! just because of speculations take a look here..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7168664.stm
Just stop a second and think if there is no war in IRAQ??? what will be the price of oil??? if IRAQ is in full production what will be the price??? use your head!!! "You End the war, You end the high price of oil"
This is simple mathematics and everything happening with in energy sector is all speculations in order to let multinational oil companies make more and more profits. Take Exxon for example. click here for facts..
http://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSWEN373020080201
Finally l think America can cut C02 emission by applying measures already taken by most EU countries. A leader in Democracy should be a Leader in good examples. We should go GREEN!!! Instead of drilling the offshore reserves which will devastate the environment AGAIN!!
Complain about this comment
Of course off-shore drilling would make a difference.
Besides, US has 800 million barrels of oil in Rocky Mts oil shales alone.
Both would allow us to significantly reduce our trade deficit and accumulate monies needed to build atomic power plants.
Both opposed by oil/gas blackmailers and ecoterrorists.
BTW. Majority of Americans support off-shore drilling and their % is growing.
Not a bad news for sen. McCain.
Not too great for sen. Obama.
Complain about this comment
Aside from the fair points everyone has raised regarding the need for urgent investment in renewable energy I would like to take up Justin's point on flip-flopping.
I agree, there should be times political leaders change their minds. In many cases it is good judgment that can underscore strong leadership.
However, when it comes to electioneering it becomes patently obvious, that such changing of the mind is less to do with leadership and everything to do with votes. It also becomes far more serious - and deserved of criticism - when candidates change positions, or even worldviews in Obama's case, with grave consequences.
McCain has consistently shown his brazen ability to do this on issues like immigration, torture and taxes and after the AIPAC conference Obama appears to have disavowed everything he used to stand for i.e. debate, consensus and unity. He also voted for the corporate welfare boondoggle the farm bill.
So much for two independent thinking change makers. It 's just like watching Clinton and Bush go at it except that McCain actually went to Vietnam and Obama actually is black.
http://oddlyamerican.wordpress.com/
Complain about this comment
I do like how everyone has suddenly become amateur geologists with specialist knowledge of oil exploration and extraction.
Complain about this comment
Meerkat,
"Besides, US has 800 million barrels of oil in Rocky Mts oil shales alone."
Oh Boy! At 21 million barrels a day, that's almost 40 days' worth!
How soon can we have that bonanza on-stream, d'ya reckon?
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
Oil Hype:
The Washington Post reports:
So, at the max of 15 billion barrels, that would make another 714 days' worth - Wow! And Next Energy News raves:
But the rather more sober USGS rate this "biggest ever" reserve at 3.65 billion barrels, or less than 10% of the 48.5 billion total US reserves...
So, this huge reserve is good for another 174 days' worth of US consumption!
It looks like we haven't really got any problems, after all, at least for the next three years or so....
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
No question: This oil drilling thing has populist appeal. How much oil we actually get out of it, on the other hand, is a function of the evolution of the price of oil and its relative recoverability in these undersea areas.
If I were an oil major, I'd lease a few thousand square miles, drill a couple of wells to look good, then sit on most of the reserves until the easy oil starts to thin out from the Persian Gulf. Then I could really make a killing from my fellow Americans. Until then, why bother drilling or investing in expensive equipment?
Is it a McCain flipflop? I concede that it's arguably not as bad as Obama pulling out of the public campaign finance system -- new facts lead to new opinions. But it does undercut the "experience" message and ties him closer to Bush. Not as bad as Crist's reversal though.
Ed, you are spot-on with your analysis. That pretty much sums up my initial reaction. The problem is that we are using real math, not populist math, in which everything American (including oil reserves) is expanded by 2-3 orders of magnitude.
Complain about this comment
OHFTF (8),
Become an instant expert yourself!
Well, how 'instant' depends upon your reading speed...
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
To be perfectly honest, as a normal member of the public, it does seem quite odd that all these politicians (on both sides of the pond) dont speak more about investing in science and research.
This involves going to my A-Level biology. Plants photosynthesis by splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen by using enzymes and the engery in light. So far, the scientific community has not found a way of artificially replicating this process of splitting water. If more money was poured into science, and a method like this could be develpoed, we would have the ultimate, cheap and clean fuel - hydrogen. When burnt, the ONLY waste product is water.
Honda have recently developed a hydrogen fuel cell but currently the methods of extracting the hydrogen make it uneconomic. If either McCain or Obama (or for that instance Brown or Cameron) made a commitment to research and development of technologies such as hydrogen extraction and possible power stations using nuclear fusion as a power source, the dependance upon foreign oil would be massively reduced, meaning that we wouldnt have to spend hours debating whether we should demolish Alaska and find an oilfield.
To me, it seems a simple strategy. I know it doesnt give the solution now, but perhaps in 2016 we wont have to be having this debate.
(other things could include legislation that all new homes must use various green technologies to provide their energy/hot water, not silly, tiny plastic windmills or useless solar panels, i mean ground heating measures etc.)
Complain about this comment
Thanks for the link Ed, will read it later. I might even have a dig about in the backyard, you never know...
Complain about this comment
The problem with oil is not necessarily with the reserves, which are still substantial although often located in politically instable countries or spots that are simply hard to reach. The problem is mostly in the amount of oil we can pump up and refine every day. The oil industry is almost at maximum capacity, because we instantly use up virtually all the oil we can get to the surface. This is what makes speculation interesting and drives up prices.
Just a minor point.
PS: do as I do and ride a bicycle. It's fun.
Complain about this comment
Re # 9
O.K. , Ed.
Make it 800 BILLION barrels in oil shales.
Billion with a 'B'.
I apologise one thousand times. ;-)
P.S. Glad to hear that sen. Obama has changed his mind again.
This time re public campaign financing.
After all it's time for change.
Complain about this comment
#6 powermeerkat: "Besides, US has 800 million barrels of oil in Rocky Mts oil shales alone."
Yes, there is an incredible amount of hydrocarbons (not oil) in the Green River Shale of Utah etc. However, there are many reasons it cannot be extracted. As it is rough bitumen, it is heavy, dense, and much to viscous (almost waxy) making pumping it out nearly impossible. Furthermore, even if it wasn't, you can't pump oil out of shale, as it is a non-porous rock, and is indeed more commonly a caprock (seal) for an oil reservoir over a more porous unit, such as a sandstone or limestone. The only existing way to remove the oil from the shales is to quarry it, crush it, and boil it, creating toxic waste rock and toxic water. Also, once the rough bitumen has been extracted, it still needs to be processed before it is even crude oil, let alone refined to usable petroleum products. The Green River oil shales are neither economically or environmentally available as a practical resource.
Complain about this comment
Instead of drilling, why don't we import cars that run on compressed air? They are available in Europe, but not in Canada and the U.S. (Curious, isn't it?) It is time to rid ourselves of this limited, expensive and polluting source of energy.
Complain about this comment
According to this site:
http://zeropollutionmotors.us/
the compressed air car will be available in the US in 2010.
Complain about this comment
We can expect both candidates to moderate
their positions as the election approaches.
McCain is actually in a weak position until
after the Republican convention, because
of the NeoCons.
After the convention, you can forget
everything that he has said up until that point.
Fortunately, as has been pointed out
previously in this blog, most Americans
aren't that bright and are distracted by
their daily affairs, so this doesn't matter.
You party faithful (of either party) will
have to accustom yourselves from now
on to standing in the back row of political
rallies from now on, and every time your
candidate says something with which you do
not agree, I suggest that you nod your head
approvingly, and repeat the following mantra:
"He's only saying that to get elected."
BTW, the US has enormous resources
of wind power, especially in Washington, DC.
Complain about this comment
#18. allmymarbles "It is time to rid ourselves of this limited, expensive and polluting source of energy." The only way this will happen with any speed is when states such as California mandate that oil-based energy be banned from powering automobiles. As long as GM, Ford and all other manufacturers continue to produce internal combustion engines which require gasoline, the problem will not disappear. Like drug trafficking, the root problem has to be attacked. In this case it's the suppliers who only make a product which works with gasoline. Of course, that won't help those with gas-guzzlers today, but it would be a step in the right direction.
Complain about this comment
If you're thinking about cars, why not
take a look at www.aptera.com?
Complain about this comment
Republicans are desperate and this whole drilling nonsense is a total joke!
The TRUTH is, the US oil industries are already sitting on over 50,000,000 acres of leased federal land. If drilling is so important RIGHT NOW, what are they waiting for? Knock yourselves out, Vampires.
But the most important thing this issue shows is that Republicans have zero vision an no ideas. In the YEARS it would take to explore and extract whatever small amount of oil exists in US waters in the Gulf of Mexico, we could make leaps towards changing our carbon-based energy infrastructure into more efficient, clean and sustainable sources of energy. But then the oil industries wouldn't be able to rob the American people of billions of dollars and fund Republican campaigns, so it's pretty clear why they oppose common sense and progress, isn't it? Could it be any more clear that Bush's energy "policy" is written by oil executives?
Complain about this comment
Penny50,
The water splitting to get hydrogen is a way of directly storing solar energy income. The main problem is how many square meters is required to get the equivalent of a gallon of gasolene in how many hours of bright sunshine at 100% efficiency.
"Now we need to know that the sun, if directly overhead, delivers 1400 watts per square meter"
Gasoline: US gallon = 115,000 Btu = 121 MJ = 32 MJ/liter
1400 watts = 5 megajoules per hour, so it would take a square meter under IDEALIZED conditions 54 hours to collect a US gallon's worth of energy (121MJ).
(Conversions done here )
Of course, when we factor in the fact of 12 hour days and ALWAYS slanting sunshine, it becomes obvious that you'll need rather more than 100 square meters to produce rather less than a gallon in an hour at midday.
These maximising assumptions mean that the actuality would probably be 95% lower, except on the equator. Start buying up the desert.
Kat,
"Make it 800 BILLION barrels in oil shales.
Billion with a 'B'."
Source? Who says?
"I apologise one thousand times. ;-)"
So it's good for 40,000 days - 110 years worth of oil for a mountain range - a bargain!
G'nR,
"every time your
candidate says something with which you do
not agree, I suggest that you nod your head
approvingly, and repeat the following mantra:
"He's only saying that to get elected."
[very big grin]
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
Ms Marbles, Gary,
The air car. Fuel Characteristics:
Compressed Air: 3200 ft3 @ 4500 psi
Charger: On board 5.5 kwh 110/220 v compressor generating 812 ft3 /hr.
It isn't clear whether this refers to a 5.5kw compressor (~8Hp) or the cost of a charge being 5.5kwh. I must assume the former, and thus a four hour charge at 5.5kw consumes 22kwh of electricity, or 80 MegaJoules (MJ), which is equivalent to 2/3 of a US gallon of Gasoline. They estimate this will take you 848 miles (range), which is out of whack with what they say elsewhere (106 MPG gas-equivalent) and state with care as "estimated performance"
It seems possible it may take more than 4 hours to get the 3200 cu ft up to 4500psi.
They also claims it refills itself at high speeds, so I reckon they're counting on recovering some braking energy....
I think we need to see some more definite figures. A good idea, no doubt, but there's no free lunches, so I reckon if you want to go 800 miles, you're gonna notice it on your electricity bill.
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
re: #25 Ed Iglehart
". . . there's no free lunches . . ."
But, but, but, . . . how can that be?
That's not what I'm constantly being told by my political "leaders"!!!!
;-)
Complain about this comment
Two things: presumably, since a keffiyeh (which is not exactly a scarf or a headscarf, it's of rather more practical use than either, or a tea-towel, for that matter) is now a 'symbol of terrorism' in the USA, and you can't even dunk a doughnut wearing one, a woman wearing a chador would be even less welcome? Oh, and presumably, our own gracious majesty wouldn't be either, since an ordinary headscarf is her normal wear outside working hours . . .I daresay David Beckham won't be taking the keffiyeh he was photographed wearing a couple of years back out of his bottom drawer any time soon either.
Many of the comments on that article are just as depressing as the mindset behind the incident itself, I see. I am rather puzzled however by the prevalance of beards in the US compared to Europe. How come that is not a "symbol" too?
And secondly, the amount of oil that may or may not be available has nothing whatever to do with the price. There is no reason whatsoever why 'home-grown' American oil should end up any cheaper than Saudi Arabian or Iraqi oil. Not unless the oil companies are nationalised and the price is fixed as it is in, er, well, Venezuela, for example . . .Or unless Europe, Russia, Brazil, China and India all go back to pedal power. A number of people who leave comments here about this really do need a somewhat better grasp of economics. And time; none of that oil is going to reach the petrol pumps in the next president's first term anyway. Or even in his second, probably.
As I have suggested before, it seems to me there is very little in the way of serious understanding of the approaching real issues of the next two decades, let alone substantial policies to deal with them, from either candidate in this presidential election. I can see the whole thing deteriorating very quickly into nothing more than a contest of images (who will be more 'Muslim') and vapid promises (who will get us the cheapest oil) over the next couple of months. Can't see why anybody should expect anything else, to be honest.
Complain about this comment
Justin, I wonder if you have any conception as to of what you have wrought since opening up this site to the brilliant minds of your bloggers. Just for kicks, I totalled up the blogs for the last ten of your several BBC colleagues' pieces, and compared them to the last ten of your articles. I am sure you will be proud of that fact that there were 216 total blogs to your Beeb confreres, and 1,043 to your outpourings. I think you should come out of your shell and thank the likes of Ed and Jack, et al, and laud them for their erudition. You never know, your Beeb bosses just might put the best of the blogs in your personnel file! And as you rise through the Beeb hierarchy maybe you will look back fondly on the old days, when we all did our best to make you look good!
Complain about this comment
A picture worth a thousand words
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
CORRECTION:
in #24 I stated it would take 54 hours idealised conditions to gather solar energy equivalent to a US gallon of "gas". It should have been 24 hours!
;-(
ed
Complain about this comment
Why the surprise at the lack of scientific input to Admin energy policy - DONCHA REMEMBER DUBYA DOESN'T BELIEVE IN SCIENCE AND WOULDN'T APPOINT A SCIENTIST TO HEAD UP SCIENCE-RELATED POLICY INITIATIVES IN HIS ADMIN? Dubya is a "creationist" and no doubt figures 'his' God will create a whole new batch of oil reserves just for him! (After all, he's got Laura to read to him from the Right-wingers' Pop-Up Bible every night before lights-out at 11pm!)
Dubya's admin was outrageously anti-science from the git-go. So Obama's stance on "green" energy/investment/entrepreneurship/etc. is directly related to SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS and so is DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED to Dubya's denial and dogma.
All you offshore-drilling fans - ever ask yourself why we've never seen a comprehensive, factual report about the total environmental and ECONOMIC damage from worldwide oil spills??? 'CAUSE BIG OIL DOESN'T WANT TO SCARE THE "BLEEP" OUT OF THE VOTING PUBLIC, THAT'S WHY!!!
Complain about this comment
The Guardian reports "Oil giants to sign contracts with Iraq." Just in time for election!
Complain about this comment
Another changing-one's-mind subject is Obama deciding not to accept the $84 million campaign money from the govenrment. Actually he had no choice. He made a pledge early on, and stuck to it, that he would not accept the support of lobbyists or special interest groups. That meant that his total expenditures for the election would be limited, without outside help, to the $84 million. McCain is taking the government money, but in addition will be backed by those very groups that are off limits to Obama, and that backing translates into money. To be competitive Obama has to rely on contributions from individual donors. Fortunately he has plenty of those.
Complain about this comment
#33 allmymarbles:
"To be competitive Obama has to rely on contributions from individual donors. Fortunately he has plenty of those."
Yeah - like me! ;)
Those little checks add up - my $25 for example.
(Although $25 wouldn't keep Cheney in bullets for his next "canned-hunt" get-together - no doubt McShame's got an invitation....)
Complain about this comment
RalphMa (#11):
The problem with your sit and wait strategy is that you'd have to wait another 200 years, because that's how much oil is still left under and around the arabian sea.
Complain about this comment
Yeah, Rube, and the moon's got a good supply of green cheese, too!
Complain about this comment
Ed,
Moon has plenty of helium-3.
That's one of the main reasons we're going back next decade.
"One small step..."
"Inch by inch..." :-)
Complain about this comment
I see most of you have taken the easy route and gone for the 'we need to run cars on moon juice' angle than picking up on Justin's troubling equation of 'Muslims' to 'trouble'.
Complain about this comment
This is a little wiser from the Obama campaign.
Complain about this comment
Re: Muslim headscarves removed.
No problem. Obama will make one of his magic apologies and the problem will be gone. Republicans will be chastised for bringing it up. Obama will be free of any taint.
Complain about this comment
Our blog host's colleague, Matt Frei, is not such a big Obama fan as Justin is.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7449663.stm
Complain about this comment
Thanks for the link, Rueben, A very realistic take on the matter.
Yeah!
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
McCain refuses to change his mind!
Neither rain nor snow, flood nor famine will keep them from their appointed rounds.....
;-(
ed
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"Like drug trafficking, the root problem has to be attacked. In this case it's the suppliers who only make a product which works with gasoline. Of course, that won't help those with gas-guzzlers today, but it would be a step in the right direction."
God forbid, have you seen how well current methods are in stopping drugs?
I'd agree it is similar but from the point of view that you have to change your perspective.
I agree suppliers have to be forced to change.
Force them.
Don't take dodge up on the deal to get cheap gas.
Ban these offers.
Rich americans buy eco cars(we poor cannot afford new cars and all old cars are crap for milage,oh except those FORN cars.
COMPACTS,how disgusting.
Moon has plenty of helium-3.
That's one of the main reasons we're going back next decade.
Again what a pile of litter.
Just try looking at all the earth based real easy to try simple solutions , instead of some sci fi dream world you live in.
Apparently the sun has enough power to power us for years, and it gives it to us FOR FREE.
WHODATHUNKIT.
Complain about this comment
Hillary is coming round
Stage 5
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
#24
Ed - I'm not sure if you've included it in your calculations (it may have been implicitly included in the 1400 watts/square meter figure) but bear in mind that it is physically impossible to put anywhere near 100% of the solar energy to use - it's a pretty high entropy source. To paraphrase and compress Prof Mackay's current work on this:
>> Photovoltaics will never go beyond 60%, and going beyond 30% would be remarkable. 10% is more likely for the forseeable future, once you factor in mass production. As such, to meet the total energy needs of a billion people, at an average eurpoean's current power consumption, assuming we were to generate the power near the equator where it's sunniest, we would need a solar farm the size of germany.
As soon as we move away from the equator, and factor in shorter days and cloud cover, it gets worse. The photovoltaic farm in muhulhausen is getting about 50 W/square meter, peak. Average, as opposed to peak, estimates go down to about a tenth of this = ~5W/square meter (again going from mackay).
That's about 1/300th the 1400W you're assuming. Even factoring in that we're making a heck of a lot of assumptions (and I'm not holding these figures up as gospel by any stretch, I'm no expert on the matter) your 95% lower guesstimate may be on the optimistic side.
Complain about this comment
41. At 2:13pm on 20 Jun 2008, Reuben34g wrote:
Our blog host's colleague, Matt Frei, is not such a big Obama fan as Justin is.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7449663.stm
I would go further and say that his coverage of this election season has been run like a clinton insider.
Justine has been in the middle but Matt has shown all the bias that can be possible.
Complain about this comment
Pat-Fox,
You're right. My purpose in the example was to use as many maximising assumptions as possible, and thus demonstrate that even in a totally unrealistic and impossible scenario, capture of solar energy is unlikely to provide us with the outrageous quantities of energy we currently take for granted.Thanks for your response.
Henry Thoreau's comment
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
Jacksforge: I wouldn't go quite so far but I would suggest that Matt Frei's reports have been a little schizophrenic - he seems to suffer bouts of extreme pessimism over Obama's chances and then awakes from them to glow positively about him. Justin has preferred the mocking approach to both Clinton and Obama but seems to bow down before McCain- whether out of fear or genuine admiration, I know not.
Complain about this comment
pat fox i think penny was talking about harnessing photosynthesis.and the lack of research in to this..
Complain about this comment
Aye, Jack, that's what I thought. I was trying to point out that, even if we could beat plants at their own game, we'd still be better off walking.
;-)
ed
The best way to harness photosynthesis is to eat home-grown vegetables or livestock grazed on local grass or browse.
Complain about this comment
Ah comprehension. the other side of learning english.
one may spell and read well in public ,but it doesn't make one understand or as some say OVERSTAND.
an ever present problem eh .
An all to often thing on the web here .posters who write well but never get it.
like the fact checkers.
Complain about this comment
Terminator Rules Out New Offshore Drilling In California
Well, that's OK then.;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
McCain as 'the man of the hour':
Notwithstanding Obama's meteoric rise as the Presidential Nominee- defeating the former formidable First Lady in the process-I think John McCain's eventful experience as war hero, Senator who vied twice with George Bush for Republican Nomination as well as his mellowed personality are most suited to face the extraordinary challenges U.S is facing now and will be facing in the immediate future. While granting Obama is
handsome and smart as some people point out, from what McCain's 'better half' says of
him, at Obama's age McCain was at least as
smart, if not smarter in his Navy uniform.
Complain about this comment
#45. jacksforge "I agree suppliers have to be forced to change. Force them." The only way to do that is by legislation. California was able to influence the world by mandating emissions standards, and similarly could require the auto industry to manufacture vehicles which do no rely on petroleum derivatives. No doubt the auto lobby in Sacramento would oppose it, but it could be done. The downside to phasing out gas powered cars is that the poorer segment of society, which tends to purchase large, used but inexpensive models, would effectively lose their transportation.
Complain about this comment
#46 - Ed:
"At the same time, in a move that took some participants on the call by surprise, she also clarified that she was not asking their help in paying off her personal loans to the campaign.
Stage 5" [link to stages of healing/grief/etc., beginning with denial; stage 5 = acceptance].
Nope - Ed, I think that Hilrod's back at Stage 3, "Bargaining."
Bargaining for BUCKS. And she's indicating veiled threats to use the gender card in interviews coming up...sounds like a bargaining chip [weapon] to me.
THE MORE HILROD CHANGES, THE MORE SHE REMAINS THE SAME.
OR IS THAT "MCSHAME"?
Complain about this comment
#57. Grrrlie "THE MORE HILROD CHANGES, THE MORE SHE REMAINS THE SAME." Isn't enough that she conceded the race to Mr Obama? Hillary-haters will only be happy when she either becomes a private person or dies.
Complain about this comment
ScribeSolomon,
"Smart" in the British sense*, perhaps, but not "clever". I reckon McCain would never have made it into (or through) Annapolis if he hadn't been the son and grandson of Admirals.He is only just barely "officer material", and certainly not CIC quality. Remember he finished 894th out of 899 in his class. Not the sharpest tool in the box, and the passing years seem to be taking their toll.
The Republican Party do have a fairly good record in the operation of glove puppets, but I don't even think McCain is good material for that.
Salaam, etc.
ed
* Snappy dresser, well dressed, well 'turned out', clean cut, etc.
Complain about this comment
Voters changing their minds?
Newsweek gives Obama a 15 point lead among registered voters nationwide.
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
Not popular with these folks, is he?
Some disappointed Veterans
Hmmmmm
ed
Complain about this comment
From FactCheck.Org on Obama's spin on his refusal of public funds:
"Obama's Lame Claim About McCain's Money
June 20, 2008
Obama says McCain is "fueled" by money from lobbyists and PACs, but those sources account for less than 1.7 percent of McCain's money.
Summary
Obama announced he would become the first presidential candidate since 1972 to rely totally on private donations for his general election campaign, opting out of the system of public financing and spending limits that was put in place after the Watergate scandal.
One reason, he said, is that "John McCain’s campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs."
We find that to be a large exaggeration and a lame excuse. In fact, donations from PACs and lobbyists make up less than 1.7 percent of McCain's total receipts, and they account for only about 1.1 percent of the RNC's receipts."
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_lame_claim_about_mccains_money.html
Complain about this comment
"The downside to phasing out gas powered cars is that the poorer segment of society, which tends to purchase large, used but inexpensive models, would effectively lose their transportation."
I have a solution to that.next time your out buying a car for a 14 year old to learn to drive in think does a 16 year old need a car.
You are so american. talk of how to keep living without change.
after all americans are so strong and powerful they cannot live like humans.the rest of the world survives on way less energy than average Joe america.
And some of them even have tv sets and a radio.
The attitude of americans that the rest of the world doesn't know what suffering is until they see an american without their AC is pretty common when this subject comes up.
now I know you mean well but I have heard the same can't do from America all my life.
Can't believe global warming is happening ,can't drive a smaller car.
you talk of long distances between places.
kids drive to school ,do they need a pickup,and does that truck need bigger wheels, and a big exhaust that makes load noise for "fun".
Can americans enjoy a holiday without driving atv on the back of pickups to the hills to race around burning more gas.etc etc.
I could love america and you sometimes seem to be alright but don't begin to tell me america can only do through legislation.
america can do it if the stupid people decide to. thats it no more, and the world is waiting for america to wake up and do something.(and if you are lost where to start just ask any recent european.
Complain about this comment
I do feel sorry for all those unfortunate Americans who just can't face any reduction in a lifestyle which, together with the rest of the "West", consumes four fifths of the annual ripoff of Earth's resources for the benefit of one fifth of her people. Poor things! Have pity on them. http://home2.btconnect.com/tipiglen/20-80.gif Imagine we're sitting at one of five great tables - the one with four fifths of all the food heaped on it. At each of the other five tables sit the same number of people as at ours, but sharing one twentieth as much food. (They have to make do with one fifth of the total spread over four tables) Now the PA system announces that next time we sit down to dinner there isn't going to be quite as much to "share out", and from our table rises a great tumult of complaint...."We can't possibly do with any less!" ;-) ed
""a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. " "
from Tom Paine's Common Sense http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/Paine/CS-Body.html
Complain about this comment
Justin,
OR, if that page won't load, try THIS.Speaking of "changed facts on the gtound",
Alan Abelson is without a doubtmy favourite acerbic commentator on the intricacies, conceits and deceits of the financial jungle. I thoroughly recommend a visit to his version of Wall Street.
xx
ed
Complain about this comment
(My apologies to the Mods for a mis-placed pair of parentheses () ;-)
from Tom Paine's Common SenseI do feel sorry for all those unfortunate Americans who just can't face any reduction in a lifestyle which, together with the rest of the "West", consumes four fifths of the annual ripoff of Earth's resources for the benefit of one fifth of her people.
Poor things! Have pity on them...
Imagine we're sitting at one of five great tables - the one with four fifths of all the food heaped on it. At each of the other five tables sit the same number of people as at ours, but sharing one twentieth as much food. (They have to make do with one fifth of the total spread over four tables)
Now the PA system announces that next time we sit down to dinner there isn't going to be quite as much to "share out", and from our table rises a great tumult of complaint...."We can't possibly do with any less!"
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
For those manic (or depressive) souls who want to follow the various estimates and projected outcomes
The General Election tracker HERE is updated regularly, and summs a number of different polling and projecting exercises.
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
Tracker update here
;-(
ed
Complain about this comment
Ed.
As one of the many old geezers here my thoughts too go out to future generations. Peak oil and Climate change! How can we educate ourselves in moving toward renewable energy sources, and keep nuclear to a minimum?
Your piece today has us sitting at one of the 5 great tables where the amount of food on our table will probably be greatly reduced in the future. Among all foods, perhaps it will be the fish specialities that are off the menu because the major fish banks have all been overfished, but what about the sea itself?
Comments the last couple of days have proported many suggestions about easing our energy needs, with the trip to the moon to win helium bringing tears to my eyes. I believe I have not noticed a comment here about wave power , tidal stream, water barrage possibilities to allay all future energy needs, obviously not available in mid "anywhere", but then solar and windpower possibilities would still hold true if one could accept the rape of the countryside with hideous machines spoiling the view. [ Paint them green perhaps?]
Do I take your lack of any suggestions along this train of thought because you have inside knowledge ? Are the "Limpet" energy
technique sources on the Isle of Islay having adverse effects on the production of your favourite Lagavulin malt?
I know you are enjoying many benefits living in Scotland. - Pensioners electric bus pass, bike for pleasure, and today monies from the Scottish powers that be if you can stop smoking. A couple of years of abstinence and you will have saved enough for your children and grandchildren to make a down payment on their $100000 Tesla electric roadster, but can you / they survive without the malt!
If 0.1% of the renewable energy in the sea were harnessed it would cover the worlds needs 5 times over. Visit "wavegen"on google. The cost of the equipment compared to what we spend on gas, coal war etc appears very reasonable. Much better than choking to death on the fumes of the one or glowing in the dark should we chose the other option.
Perhaps a tongue in cheek quote from one of yesterdays fondest remembered fathers.
"Most people spend more time and energy going around problems than trying to solve them" Henry Ford.
Complain about this comment
Waterman,
The first law of thermodynamics still holds - any energy 'harvested' leaves less in they system from which it is harvested. Thus if we tap an ocean flow (the "Gulf Stream" comes to mind) for significant amounts of energy, it will slow down. Is that what we want ("need") to do?If we drill holes deep enough, we can tap the Earth's inner heat by sending down cold water and getting hot water back. Of course, this will chill the Earth to heat our homes. We can probably even get enough heat to generate electricity to drive our cars, by chilling the Earth a bit more.
My little calculation at #24 above is meant to illustrate the enormous quantities of energy we "need" to prop up our profligate lifestyle. These quantities cannot be removed from any natural system without affecting that system, and probably in ways we don't anticipate.
Our present profligacy is fed by using up in a few generations the solar energy stored over millions of years. No sensible creature considers such behaviour "sustainable", and certainly no "capitalist" patriarch (or matriarch) would condone it.
If we tap the tides, will this act as a gravitational brake on the moon? Is this how we might slow down time itself?
Islay is safe with me, but is Corryvreckan? A lot of untapped (and dangerous) energy there!
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
Introducing Michelle Obama, the new Cover girl
Nice!
ed
Complain about this comment
War, Inc. with John Cusack
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
ed
Complain about this comment
lol
Water man , the reason someone like me does not bring up waves is that some out there are so hell bent on proving nothing works(and so do nothing) that I would not want to confuse their little minds.
Glad to see you have better mind for these problems we need to solve.
Ed I agree with you as well.
Man always tries to do MORE rather than less.
I agree that a simpler life would be better for all.
And I read enough 2000AD in my time to be blind to the concept of humans draining every bit of energy from this planet.(probably in order to generate what we need to find another planet to live on.) Given a chance and if people continue to forget to be HUMAN once in a while.
Complain about this comment
Ed
Thanks for your explanations. I was not thinking of taking it to the extreme alteration of gulf flows- I think the El Ninjo circumstances now present in the world show us all what ballsing up the planet does but more a simpler approach- tide in tide out etc etc.- The Wavegen LIMPET approach at Islay and the deep water Wavepump idea at Madeira being good examples.
Noted the comment "Islay is safe with me". I take it then that you all well stocked up and your own malt supply is ageing well in sherry casks under or in the treehouse. Obama must be a very happy squirrel.
Complain about this comment
Hi, ed!
While thanking you for the nice things you said about my earlier comment, I can only agree to disagree with your latest comment. Although it was in the literal sense of dress smartness and the bearing of John McCain, I meant, now that I come to think of it, I would like to quote from the Book of Proverbs 20: 29 thus:
"...And the splendor of old men is their gray
head".
It is wisdom forged on the anvil of
experience. I don't mean merely military experience. If the latter was the case, and if
performance at Military Academy isanything to go by, in whole of U.S H/O there would have been many more Generals who became President than Eisenhower orGrant.
Scribesolomon
Complain about this comment
And Hi back to ya, Scribe,
I miss the old fellow.Just to note that the only graduate of USNC Annapolis to make it to POTUS so far has been Jimmy Carter, who finished in the top 10% of his class - make of that what you will ;-)
My experience of military teaching/learning has left me with a clear impression that it doesn't take a great intellect to excel in such circles. There are, however, other aptitudes which are probably useful in leadership situations. The question is whether McCain has shown any evidence of such, and I see precious little.
Eisenhower, on the other hand, showed leadership quality as well as developing great wisdom in his "grey" years. This can be seen very clearly in his "farewell" address, which not only showed wisdom, but also a remarkable prescience:
Salaam, etc.
ed
P.S.
Complain about this comment
Jack, #73
As somebody who invariably puts his leg in his mouth when attempting to communicate, me making waves is the norm. Thanks for regarding me as a "thinker". Perhaps thats why I am losing my hair.
Life is full of dissappointments.
J.Webb the boss above, with his moderators- enough said.
J.Webb a hope for Veep now wanting to drill offshore!
The cost of fuel resulting in Obama only getting $22million last month from his everyday supporters.[ equalling Mccains' total]. { Cindy has obviously been selling a shipload of cookies}
Christian Ronaldo [ Manchester United and Portugal] could not carry the team on his shoulders against Germany.
But tonight Hope could again raise its' head in the name of Marco v Bastens Holland and we could see a Change in the normal run of things against Russia.
Ed. You supported England in an earlier game. If Holland can do as much with their football as they can do with water then this game is right up your street. By the way the wavegen peoples projects also work hand in hand with desalination treatments-
Water , of the clean, fresh and drinking type- something else the world is running out of!
Complain about this comment
For Scribe:
Arming Obama - Jim WebbWith his military cred and opposition to the Iraq adventure (from the git-go) he's currently the betting folks' favourite for VP, but only time will tell. It's a virtual certainty he'll be an important member of Obama's team, which already has a galaxy of creditable folk.
Peace to all,
ed
Complain about this comment
Well, well, well! What a surprise that Obama has opted to go the "private" route to add to his already glutted campaign chest, courtesy of those Obamaniacs who have more money than sense!
And now he and Hillary are snuggling, after being so nasty to each other for the past 18 months or so. Maybe now that the sky's the limit, rather than that niggardly $85 million of public funds, Obama might help Hillary settle that $22.5 million debt!
Complain about this comment
#63 jacksforge "next time your out buying a car for a 14 year old to learn to drive in think does a 16 year old need a car." You’re telling the wrong person, but I get the drift. The issue of young drivers can just as well apply to other nations.
You cannot blame America for all the ills in the World. Great Britain has imported nearly all the habits and lifestyle of Americans and shows no signs of changing its ways. It's a much smaller country than the US and should be able to implement change more rapidly, but hasn't. Only in the last 25/35 years or so have Britons become obsessed with cars and I know people who now simply won’t use trains and buses because they’re 'too crowded' and would rather sit on a motorway in relative comfort. At least the UK has a comprehensive rail network for commuters, but there’s not one all over America; the Eastern cities are better served than those in the West. Chicago, New York, even San Francisco have some kind of subway system, but thousands of others do not. Of course they *can* be built, as Los Angeles has demonstrated, but it's a long, very costly process and is always protested by those whose property is involved.
SUVs ("Chelsea tractors") abound with the well-off in Britain but here their sales have plummeted; depending on what source is read, GM is considering dropping its Hummer line. Small cars are being driven as I've noted before, but alternatively-fueled vehicles (other than hybrids) are just not available. Nevertheless, buyers of new cars are looking for fuel efficiency, as GM has found to its cost - over the last three years the company has lost over $50 Billion. That's the "stupid people" reaction to high priced gasoline but I don’t see what else they can do - other than by legislation. Remember, the land mass of USA is almost twice that of Europe, so demands "by the people" are ineffective - but making their voices heard with their wallets seems to work.
Regarding where to start, "ask any recent european" - perhaps those in Europe who contribute here can tell us. If the British and European public can be denied a vote on the European Constitution and now the Lisbon Treaty, what can they do to influence their governments to mandate 'green' fuel? Will a new Conservative government do any better than Labour?
Complain about this comment
McCain pledges to save $3 million immediately
Challenges Obama to Jungle duel.
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
Sentimental thinking
Wendell BerryHmmmmm
ed
Complain about this comment
#80 - Addendum - On this evening's CBS news, there was an item about hydrogen-fueled cars made by Honda. Only a very few are available and, as the CNN article mentions, refueling stations are extremely limited. The top range is 80 miles on a fill-up, which leaves a lot to be desired, but it shows what can be done. The TV segment (which is not on CBS2's web site) showed an owner who was about to run out and went to a ('gas') station to fill up, but initially the equipment was out-of order! One comment was that it was a chicken-and-egg situation: the manufacturer wouldn't commit to make thousands of the vehicles if the refueling stations were not in place, and refueling stations would not commit to installing the equipment unless there was the promise of thousand of cars! So the buying public is stuck in the middle.
Complain about this comment
David,
;-)And the automobile is marketed as the ultimate in individual independence!
ed
P.S.
Complain about this comment
Ed
Loved the P.S. link.{ the Mrs too]
But who were you hoping that the angel of death was going to escort from this world.? { The music piece being a link to the Meet Joe Black film}
Or are you suggesting a "Sword of Damocles" is hanging over us all?
David
http://vegetableoildiesel.co.uk/introduction.html
Complain about this comment
David
The link sent takes "food" for people to give food for very old diesel cars- no modern injection engine possibiliies. Reading through the link you see that you invariably step on everybody toes- customs and excise etc etc not forgetting that should you threaten to use it you will drive through town with that familiar Freedom Fry odour. Okay perhaps here on the farm or a building site, but on the road is not really on, not forgetting the exorbitant price of this alternative that varies from country to country. { Cheap here}
Still one does not have to worry about not finding fuel- any supermarket, chip shop, restaurant, chinese etc etc etc.......
Complain about this comment
Nevertheless, buyers of new cars are looking for fuel efficiency, as GM has found to its cost - over the last three years the company has lost over $50 Billion
so you agree legislation is a waste of time . the only thing to get americans to change is reality.
Well.
you say they are changing.
so what should we do, get prices down so they stop changing.
all you have said is what I have been saying all along.
AMERICANS NEED TO CHANGE AND DRILING WILL NOT HELP.
WHAT is your argument.
America CAN change or
america CAN"T change.
Comparing UK car use is funny.
Well we still let kids walk to school or drive them but rarely does the kid DRIVE THEMSELVES TO SCHOOL.
the other side rather than just buying better cars(and throwing out the one they bought 4 years ago) just use them less.
like I said tell your 14 year old they get no car at 16.
As for not blaming america for ills.
WHY NOT
Others have been responsible but after all MOST OF THE WORLDS RESOURCES HAVE BEEN USED UP TO PROVIDE AMERICANS WITH A SPOILT LIFE.
Go add up the figures.
Americans saying we are not bad it's not our fault should accept europeans critisising them more.
because europe is trying and has been from before this debate took hold in the US.
JUST REMEMBER EUROPE AND THE WORLD WANTED TO ADDRESS THIS BACK BEFORE AMERICA STARTED IT"S WAR ON TERROR.
So now you'll FINALLY figured out (AFTER KATRINA) the worlds weather may be screwed you thing we should all say how great you are that you finnally get it.
sorry do something now.
for years AMErica has blocked all agrements, AMERICA.
Not the EU ,AMERICA so thanks for finally getting it but now listen to us the EUROPEANS, because we have been trying and doing more for longer and for once if you Americans listen you might learn something.
It will take EVERY effort to correct this problem.
AND DRILLING OFF CALI WILL NOT HELP.
Argue yourself into agreement with that.
me "I agree suppliers have to be forced to change. Force them"
you" The only way to do that is by legislation."
"Nevertheless, buyers of new cars are looking for fuel efficiency, as GM has found to its cost - over the last three years the company has lost over $50 Billion. That's the "stupid people" reaction to high priced gasoline but I don?t see what else they can do - other than by legislation."
I ask America to change.
it is starting.
keep changing. don't stop now.
It is people and lifestyles that have to change.
Americans have to change.
this debate is about America and it's energy.
stop bitching about the rest of the world and sort yourselves out.
I don't care if Brits love their cars. they still drive them less.
stop pretending america is not the root of this problem.
Then we will have lots to agree on.
Complain about this comment
In #66 I gave the example of five great tables with four fifths of the food on only one. I neglected to mention, that at 'our' table, the Americans have twice as much food and goodies piled up in front of them as the rest of us do....There's greedy, and then there's double-greedy
Energy Production and Consumption
(in thousand metric tons of oil equivalent) {a}
Total energy production, 2000
(US, N America, UK, Europe, World)
1,675,770 2,050,633 272,693 2,253,336 10,077,984
Total energy consumption {b}, 2,269,985 2,511,765 230,324 2,559,701 9,702,786
Energy consumption per capita,
7.96 7.95 3.89 3.51 1.64
USA, N America, UK, Europe, World
(source Earth Trends)
Salaam, etc.
ed
Complain about this comment
Nutter#s corner
Watch the nutter!Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
ed
Complain about this comment
re: #89 Ed Iglehart
Nutter? Hardly. It's absolutely brilliant.
One of Obama's main sources of support comes from the "anti-war" constituency. What better way to reduce that source of support than to get them to consider that perhaps the best way to prevent another war is to vote against Obama and for McCain.
It's pretty good evidence that the neocons still retain a lot of power, in spite of the lame duck administration, and mean to retain it through working for a McCain victory, no matter what it takes.
Complain about this comment
One opening near you soon!
Peter, Yeah, but I still think these guys are nutters - dangerous nutters, but nutters!
Bob Bob Bob Barr and... Go Bob!
And, late night laughs
Salaaaaam
ed
Complain about this comment
#86. watermanaquarius - The link and article about vegetable oil for fuel is not new technology, whereas the Honda link is attempting something new and without carbon emissions.
#84. Ed - Quoting yourself is unhelpful. Had it been a recognised authority that would be one thing, but linking us to one of your self-described 'rants' (and not particularly short either!) is quite another. It's all very well to pontificate from your tree house, but until you live and work where the problems are (which you have chosen not to do) I don't see that you have any insight to what happens in the real world.
#87. jacksforge "so you agree legislation is a waste of time" No, I don't! If there were to be legislation from a major state, probably California since it is the most populous, it would substantially speed up the changes. People here didn't give up leaded fuel voluntarily, nor did they junk their vehicles which pumped out noxious fumes and gases - legislation forced them to do so when they were not emissions-compliant. The UK was far behind in banning leaded fuel and requiring catalytic converters - and any manufacturer who wished to sell their cars here had to make them California-compliant, same with safety belts.
I haven't expressed a position on new drilling - Gov. Schwarzenegger is opposed to lifting the ban on it in California and it's unlikely to change. I don't have any statistics to show how many children drive themselves to school, but I would guess it's very, very few. The yellow school buses pick up and deliver students, something which is being considered in the UK. In more remote areas, possibly that happens, but what are they supposed to do - walk 25 miles? Making just one round trip journey is preferable to a parent making two - one to deliver and one to collect uses twice as much fuel.
I don't agree that "America is the root of the problem". Europe is just as culpable as anywhere else; America has a total ban on unleaded fuel for automobiles and has led the way to reducing auto-emissions and increasing fuel efficiency. You cannot get 300 million people to change their ways overnight. If American habits are so awful, why is it that the UK emulates almost everything that Americans do - from fridges to pizza, cars to hamburgers, dishwashers and "fitted kitchens", the list is endless. If those on this side of the Atlantic have a "spoilt life" as you suggest, what about the British? They take holidays abroad, have cars which pollute, a free (more-or-less) health service, and all the benefits of modern life. I don't see that blaming all the world's problems on one nation does the least bit of good - after all , where would Britain, France and the rest of Europe be today without America?
Complain about this comment
David.
Sorry for the link to old technology.
The Honda fuel cell idea is new.- Both Chevrolet and BMW have their cars too.- Gets one to the end of the drive and then you have to switch to the gasoline tank?? Forgetting the present day cost of hydrogen, what about the Nitrogen oxides that are also produced in the combustion process- Oh well, one poison for another. I believe Disney- land are taking a couple for the test period, which sounds about right.
Hydrogen and travel,- forgetting the lack of filling stations or worry about the presence of the filling stations area.
The word Zeppelin comes to mind- I love Japanese cars of all types but keep them in America please.
Complain about this comment
#93 waterman - " I believe Disney- land are taking a couple for the test period," the reference to Disney is interesting, since they have a functioning monorail system. I and others have long wondered why the system could not be implemented all over the Los Angeles area - the rights of way above and alongside freeways are there for using. This site, Monorails of the World shows that there are large systems as well as the small. Where more efficient public transportation has been made available, the public accepts it, not only for the savings in money, but for the convenience it provides. Financing such enormous undertakings is part of the problem, but they would not have been as expensive as the massive freeway system in place and still growing.
Regarding Japanese cars, their popularity is because they are most reliable. The British auto industry could have been in the same position, but it slipped through their hands - the Mini could have led the way, and only now that it's made by BMW has it become popular.
Complain about this comment
David,
Consuming around half as much per capita as the USA, that's where we are.;-)
ed
And that's probably NOT counting the energy consumed cutting, milling and shipping the timber from Indonesia or the energy cost of raising plants and cutting off and airfreighting their genitals to be used to decorate our weddings funerals and bar mitzvahs....
Complain about this comment
re: #95 Ed Iglehart
As much as appreciate most of your comments on these blogs, let me throw some cold water on your numbers by way of some realism. (This is in no way a defense of profligate energy consumption by anyone, I am merely trying to temper the sanctimony in your post.)
If one considers the fraction of
energy consumption per capita
divided by
GDP per capita
One gets the following numbers:
US - .00017
UK - .00011
World - .00022
POINT 1. GDP is a measure of wealth. The US is much more efficient than the rest of the world in terms of wealth creation. Thus, the "World" wastes a much higher fraction of energy than the US.
POINT 2. As far as the UK/US comparison goes: A much larger fraction of US wealth has gone to international benefits than that of the UK.
1. As a specific example, consider that the US paid a significant fraction of its GDP in defense of Europe and much of the world during the Cold War, while the UK expenditures were a mere pittance by comparison. (I consider the war expenditures of the past few years _not_ to be of international benefit, so they don't count.)
2. Considering the ratio of US vs UK expenditures as a function of GDP over the post-WWII decades to things like European Reconstruction, Asian Reconstruction, World Bank, IMF, UN, WHO, Disaster Relief, and on and on, the UK contribution lags badly compared to that of the US.
3. Economies of scale do not favor a geographically extended country like the US, so it must be expected that there will be inefficiencies in the US that will not affect the UK to the same extent.
I don't have the statistics available to demonstrate how much these factors would serve to "adjust" the numbers shown above, but I expect that the difference between the UK and US in terms of energy consumption versus GDP limited only to internal use on a per capita basis would be be pretty close.
A little less sanctimony and more realism in all this US bashing would serve to elevate the discussion in this blog.
Complain about this comment
Peter,
Au contraire, GDP is a measure of economic activity. ALL economic activity contributes to GDP, including motorway crashes (ambulances, panel-beaters, burial costs, emergency medical costs, prosthetics, ...) War is a major contributor to GDP. Bank interest contributes to GDP. Prison costs contribute to GDP. flood damage contributes to GDP. Earthquakes, forest fires, hurricanes, tsunamis, 9/11, 7/7, you name it - it's all positive so far as GDP is concerned.GDP is a measure of TURNOVER, and you can't eat GDP
Salaam, etc.
ed
Complain about this comment
#95. Ed "Consuming around half as much per capita as the USA." If there had been anything left! A vast German state would have removed thinkers such as yourself. But there would have been lots of cheap VWs around, one of the very few good things to come out of that time.
I would have thought Scottish weddings might have used a little heather rather than exotic blooms from far-off lands, but that's the price of easy transport. Taking your line of thought, people should not take honeymoons in other countries, but make do with places closer to home, but I suspect Torquay and Bournemouth don't have the allure of the Caribbean or South America. Tony Blair, who should have set an example, didn't when taking holidays; he and Cherie were always of jet-setting with their wealthy pals. I don't think we can turn back the clock to what it was, say, 50 years ago and utilise the lessons learnt today. I suppose a ban on travel could be placed, as there is for Americans to Cuba, and a return to foods-in-season rather than 24/7 availability. It would take an enormous conflagration for that to happen - and after the dust settled there might be very few left to care about such things.
I would have provided a link to EarthTrends so you could see the consumption by every country, but after three views, registration is required, and I rarely register when asked - yet another password to be remembered. The World figure appears to be averaged out rather than showing the gross amount. The figures you provide don't take into account geographical distances - how many people in the UK commute 50 or 60 miles each way? There are a lot more variables to be taken into account - a hot state, as in New Mexico, Arizona or California, needs refrigeration - Britain can quite easily do without it, as most did until forty years or so ago. It's comparing apples and oranges to attempt to show that one country use less (or more) energy than another. If everyone lived in the same conditions, then the numbers would mean something, but people don't and such comparisons, while interesting, are really not helpful and prove nothing.
Complain about this comment
David,
How sad is that? I provided one to you. Do you think I don't know how to use the site? Registration is free and safe.The only reason I didn't provide links to the full country profiles is that they're pdfs, and the software here doesn't like them.
All your special pleading (America is big, spread out, needs refrigeration, airconditioning, etc....) is just that - special pleading and cuts no ice with Mother Nature
.
Tom Paine's Common Sense
Salaam, etc.
ed
Complain about this comment
re: #97 Ed Iglehart
Oh, Ed, Ed, Ed !!! Sometimes I wonder. . .
1. You are correct that GDP is measured in terms terms of economic activity, i.e., turnover.
Yet, in the absence of any better measure, it is used by virtually all as a fairly reliable measure of standard of living which is often equated with national wealth.
From Wiki: "The argument in favor of using GDP is not that it is a good indicator of standard of living, but rather that (all other things being equal) standard of living tends to increase when GDP per capita increases. This makes GDP a proxy for standard of living, rather than a direct measure of it."
2. ". . . you can't eat GDP"
What's your point? You can't eat houses, either, yet I think you'd have a hard time finding anyone who believes that they do not contribute to anyone's quality of life. You also can't eat jobs, clothing, education, children (unless you're a Swift devotee), railroads, forests, hospitals, and many other things that are essential to quality of life.
Complain about this comment
he's right you know?
america is stretched out etc. . because they chose to be .
Simple solution for cooling.
even with photo voltaic cells that were crap the roof structure is kept cooler by having a shade built over it.If america had (state by state is nessasary) just kept up with carters solar help america would by now have lots of way more efficient cells on their roofs.
Simple laws of physics say if energy hitting the roof, that would otherwise be producing heat, is converted in to electricity, the roof would be cooler.
Real simple. so the most cost effective way to build in Cali (and other lizard states )may be to make solar roofs mandatory.
Cooler house and electricity.
Architecture can solve a lot of problems with climate control. Not building a box in every state that looks the same because it is the american dream. and that is why they have hundereds of empty homes in Vagas reno etc that are useless drains on the economy instaed of americas next power plant.
Area specific architecture not cookie boxes for every one.
A universal problem but one that is unfortunately way worse here in the states.
Complain about this comment
as fro gdp .
there is a point that tax paying for war that funds big corperations with lots of unaccountable money that disappears before the tax man sees it or it gets spent in country leaving the locals to grasp at straws
trying to earn some crust while a few get REALLY RICH and the rest well don't do so well get left behind .
But the GDP is great.
I wonder how good Nigeria's gdp is and how many see any of that gdp.
Great use GDP but share it out.
I don't doubt being so reasonable you would see the plus side of that.
Complain about this comment
by the way the states is pretty bad at actually giving up the money it pledges to UN missions.etc.
Complain about this comment
#99 - Ed: I'm looking forward to the day hopefully during my lifetime when the USA is split into several different countries - with each country put under adminstrative oversight of countries which prioritize for environmental protection, universal healthcare, and reproductive responsibility.
The USA has always been run by robber barons and it's definitely time for a CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN.
However, ultimately the USA is too big and most of its citizens are also way too big. [not me]
Complain about this comment
my #104 - p.s.
re: the Treat of Hidalgo, the USA doesn't really 'own' a lot of the southwest anyway - Mexico does. So, there goes Dubya's big fence project....
Complain about this comment
#99. Ed - Read your post at 95 again - there is no link. And I refuse to register with every site which requires it; usually there's an alternate way of getting the information.
I wasn't "pleading" about America's needs, and linking (again) to a link within your own site to make a point cuts no ice with me. It is impossible to compare the use of energy by an individual in one country with another unless the conditions are, if not identical, then at least almost so. The distance for travel, the weather, the infrastructure all have a bearing on how much energy a person uses - it's not Scotland's fault it is so small, just as it isn't America's that it's so big . You cannot compare the lives and energy use of those who live around you with those who live in areas where distances and weather are quite different. That isn't the basis for a scientific evaluation. Compare residents of New York to London perhaps, but not New York to Edinburgh or London to Sacramento, California. The circumstances of energy use and requirements are quite different in the last two pairings.
Perhaps rather quoting other (and dead) people so very often, you might gi'e us the benefit of your own thoughts. With time and inclination, anyone of us can find some site or other which will provide apparent validation of our opinions. It is said that Shakespeare and the Bible can 'prove' anything - and with the internet, however outlandish the idea, it can be substantiated by a third party.
Complain about this comment
We don't necessarily need to go high tech to attain energy efficiency in our homes, especially with regards to heating and cooling, instead of building up; we should build down, and hide much of our ugly urban sprawl beneath nature's beauty.
But for those who shun the life of a troglodyte, using thick layers of earth as insulation in our building materials would do much better than a few inches of spun fiberglass.
Organic farming is bringing back the local food supply systems, so a break-down of our far flung food supply system does not have to be catastrophic, provided of course you don’t live in the middle of a mega city like New York, or London.
I'll head for the hills if that ever happens.
Complain about this comment
re: #107 Reuben34g
"I'll head for the hills if that ever happens."
Of course, if the s--- ever hits the fan, everyone in the cities will have similar thoughts.
I doubt that the residents of the hills will be in a very welcoming mood.
I think that even our friendly Ed would be a wee bit perturbed to find the entire population of Edinburgh on his doorstep demanding to be housed and fed.
Complain about this comment
Peter (#108): I am from the hills, so I'll just go back to my house in the country, and I no matter how much I'd like to have tea with Ed, I won't be on someone else's door step looking for a hand out.
Complain about this comment
"It is impossible to compare the use of energy by an individual in one country with another unless the conditions are, if not identical, then at least almost so."
DC comics.
America has some of everything weather wise.
UK has less sun than US. Still solar works.
Too hot build tall structures with narrow alleys, they did it all over the world.It works.
Start changing.
Can do nation ,my donkey.
" You cannot compare the lives and energy use of those who live around you with those who live in areas where distances and weather are quite different."
yea ed get fair .I' mean ,like ,just look, we got ski slopes just like 2hours away.dude,. like cool we go boarding man.hop in the rig and cruise to the slopes to get RAD. man.dude.
like every weekend. like then we go jet skiing like dude wow.
not our fault you just got pubs to go to. dude like chill.
we drive to somewhere else every weekend.OK, so chill.
Complain about this comment
DC comic seriously, you seem a little peeved at Ed's responces.
Chill out dude. you take it all way too seriously.
Except that which you should take seriously.
Complain about this comment
woo did yuo hear there's 6new inches of snow up at the pass lets go skiing agins dude.
What about the enviroment.?
dude we are the enviroment, were natural .like.I mean, if god didn't want us to screw up his planet totally he wouldn't have made US, right dude.
Yea rock on lets go.
Complain about this comment
#111 jacksforge - Ed's a big boy and can take whatever comes his way. He's the one who's so serious - first it was the new Messiah and now it's how bad Americans are at conserving fuel. There's no point in using statistics for comparison unless the conditions are the same. Perhaps you and he can tell us just where it is that provides perfection of life. Apparently it's not the USA and I doubt very much if (for Ed) its the UK, since he wants Scotland to become independent. So point us to a good example of what we should be doing and what country we should strive to emulate.
On the subject of Mr Obama though, posters may have read of his presidential-looking seal and its motto "vero possumus" - a pity that the second word is so close to "posthumous" and I'm surprised someone didn't try saying it out loud before using it; regardless of however clever it is, it seems an unfortunate choice to me.
Complain about this comment
The headscarves story on Politico reminds me of the appalling treatment of an anti-Iraq war protester at a Labour party conference a few years ago.
The patronising ethos of marketing people - why change the world when you can change people's perceptions of it? - usually comes a cropper, and eventually proves counter-productive given the negative publicity which follows discovery.
So tell me, Obama, would you object to a nun sitting in camera-shot in your audience?
Or, for that matter, a transvestite who isn't very convincing? Or an unconvincing transvestite dressed as a nun?
Now that gives me a cunning plan! Be afraid, Obama, be very afraid!
Complain about this comment
My latin is rusty because my classic education is all self-taught but I think
"vero possumus" means "In truth, it is possible."
Complain about this comment
Peter,
So your argument is that because Americans have a higher "standard of living", that makes it allright for them to consume twice as much as their nearest comparable group?The higher standard of living, I agree, EXPLAINS the higher level of consumption, but it does not EXCUSE it or constitute some sort of twisted ENTITLEMENT as David seems to be arguing.Simply that there are better measures than GDP.
David,Try #88. Again, special pleading and JUNKIE TALK! "We've got special problems. "We need our fix!" "I have a big house, so I'm ENTITLED to more oil for heating and airconditioning!"......
Listen to yourself.
Salaam, etc.
ed
And I shall continue to refer to wise men and women, whether dead or alive, especially when they express my own sentiments better than I might hope to.
Complain about this comment
David,
That's a start.
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
@ ed Iglehart:
you REALLY want Scotttish independence?
and how will they support themselves economically? (forget about the oil, big bro to the south will never let it happen, and besides which the big Oilco's already own most of the action in that area).
The fact is - and I speak as a resident of Saaf Laahndan - the south east pays for most of the UK.
We will economically benefit from cutting Scotland adrift. Scotland won't. A future as an EU handout-junkie doesn't sound that hot to me.
Complain about this comment
Streathamite,
Kool-Ade. Depends upon one's accountant.;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
David#94,
Thanks for the link to monorails. Yes they would create an excellent inner city transport system but I believe this will encourage the selfish few to reverse their thinking and buy big luxury cars again, so their introduction would be of little benefit. Perhaps we should be looking backwards instead of forwards in many aspects of city travel.
In Amsterdam the powers that be have given the tram its own route in the middle of the road,[ 2 lanes], halved the traffic lanes and increased the width of the cycle lane with a view to promoting public transport use, or getting on your bike. This has often made the situation worse, increasing rather than decreasing jams mainly because of delivery vehicles, but to be fair, the air is a lot cleaner.
London like Amsterdam now attempts a fee for entering the main city limits. Plus parking charges run to +/_$4 an hour so all are being pushed to think about the necessity of their trip. [Gas at $2.50 a litre helps too]
Maybe these ideas will work in some American cities where like the above, the terrain is flat, [ for cycling]. If one is to believe the reports that many Americans are overweight then perhaps one can kill 2 birds with one stone- A cleaner less polluted city via less waste of gas in traffic jams and a fitter folk.[Health care?]
Re your last 2 points- Yes Japanese cars are excellent, [economical and reliable] but to compare the Leyland Mini with the BMW MINI you must be joking. It is like comparing a Willys Jeep to a Range Rover, and I know where my heart lies.
Back to basics appears to be my mindset.
Complain about this comment
DC comic
you are angry with Ed. you have at no stage countered any argument with anything that you would call proof either.
throw your crap statistics out.
Just try to find one that says the USA uses less energy percapita than UK. Just try.
ANd the UK IS crap too. "greenies" know that , we are not happy with any nations responce, but most of all we are pissed with the US because they CLAIM to be leaders ,they CLAIM to care about the world enough to start wars.They CLAIM they are on board with stopping Global warming.
But they do nothing. and as an american I find that Indefensable and so will not defend AMERICA"S RIGHT TO KILL EVERYONE ELSE while they stick their heads in the sand and say "WE CAN"T DO THAT"
you live in cali. If you cannot keep cool without ac change your building style.
starting NOW.
Come up with an answer why solar will not work yet.
Alll you have are answers that are. WILL NOT WORK HERE. WE ARE AMERICXANS.WE HAVE RIGHTS . WE ARE AMERICANS. WE ARE AMERICANS WE ARE AMERICANS.
WELL THE REST OF THE WORLD DOESN"T CARE If you are americans or not but they want you and all nations to use less energy, and provide some glaobal equality.
Nations will be underwater and americans will still b e moaning about their problems and how hard life is etc.
PATHETIC shame on this country the attitude like yours.
As embarassing as that clinton lady.
treat us special were americans.
YOU HAVE ONE OF THE BEST COUNTRIES TO WORK WITH BUT YOU IGNORE IT.
get real
get on board.
Complain about this comment
As for looking for an example of how to start doing something go check out WOKING.
hard to believe but it has something to show.
(yes I was stuck in Woking once too)
Complain about this comment
No ,but yes but no, ,but yes but no vickydadlivesina bighosue,seelikewickedantheyvegottahave air con ditioninglikecause it'srightposhlike cool wicked.
That makes as much sense as your arguments that the US is the HARDEST PLACE TO LIVE ON THE PLANET.
but yeabut no
Complain about this comment
Jack,
With the Memphis blues again?
Complain about this comment
#116. Ed "some sort of twisted ENTITLEMENT as David seems to be arguing." Now just how do you come to that conclusion? "special pleading and JUNKIE TALK" It's not special pleading - it's a comparison. You cannot compare two entirely dissimilar things and get a meaningful result. Those who live near the equator don't require heating in their winter, but others who live far to the north do. To say that those in the north demonstrate worse behaviour than those in the south is ridiculous. A big (or small) house is an individual choice, but weather conditions, distance from shopping and education is not. I note that you were obliged to drive all the way to Dumfries to a railway station - if you had lived nearer, despite the efficiency of your vehicle, think how much you would have saved. Perhaps you should have chosen to live closer in order to conserve diesel fuel. Ranting about big houses and entitlement doesn't help - why should you have the pleasure of living so far distant from a railway station? And incidentally, in this part of the world, natural gas provides heating, not oil.
If Bhutan is so appealing - why not move there? Would you miss the conveniences of modern life or could you do without them?
#120 waterman - besides monorail systems, which are generally elevated, you'll remember the tram and trolley-buses in the UK. In Reading for example there had been both, greatly efficient, but all the tracks and overhead power lines were torn out to make way for inefficient petrol or diesel fueled buses. Like L.A., poor judgement, but I suppose that at the time no one considered that many families (both British and American) would ever run multiple vehicles.
My reference to the original mini was intended to show that the concept of a small reliable British car could have taken off in America. BMC declined to retool it to meet US Federal safety regulations which effectively handed over the small car market to the Japanese. Now that the "Mini" is again available in the US, albeit larger and different to the original, it has become a popular small car. Forty years ago, had BMC or, later, British Leyland, marketed a US-compliant version, then the UK would have maintained a viable car manufacturing industry. When one considers that the British Government financed the Delorean (and lost its investment) it shows how shorted sighted everyone was. But Rolls-Royce and other luxury brands were quick to incorporate catalytic converters lest the were blocked from selling in their most important market.
#121. jacksforge - "throw your crap statistics out" That should be addressed to Ed, not me; I've never quoted any statistics. "Come up with an answer why solar will not work yet." I've never said it doesn't, and here in Los Angeles, many do have solar cells on their roof tops which actually feed unused power back into the grid. The electric meter does in fact run backwards. The cost of the panels is a factor since the payback period could be many years and not everyone has the cash to install them, nevertheless they are not uncommon. Other energy conserving methods include hot water, powered by the heat of the sun, which can be used for domestic use and in swimming pools. Again, it's the cost of the equipment which is the deterrent to greater use.
"If you cannot keep cool without ac change your building style. starting NOW." And if you can't stay warm in winter, then change where you live. Telling me to change a building style is not very practical (unless of course you have the spare cash to pay for it) however, all new houses built here in California are far more efficient that those of 50 years ago. Greater insulation, double-paned windows, energy efficient domestic appliances and the planting of more trees all help to bring energy use down. No wood or coal burning fireplaces are permitted and fluorescent bulbs are replacing incandescent. You need to check out what really is changing before becoming so angry.
Complain about this comment
#119. Ed "I have a big house, so I'm ENTITLED to more oil for heating and airconditioning!" Have a look at this on your side of the pond. Now that's 'entitlement'! Who gives planning permission for such grotesque displays of wealth and conspicuous consumption? Change, like Charity, begins at home.
Complain about this comment
You just don't get it do you David?
Complain about this comment
#127, Ed "You just don't get it do you David?"
I get it OK - why not answer the questions? It's all very well trotting out figures, but they don't mean diddly unless all the factors are taken into consideration, something which you don't care to do. Some of us are doing our bit in using less energy but you continue to reference an untypical view of life over here. Other than using a diesel-powered vehicle, what else do you personally do to lower your use of energy? It's not only America where there's a problem, it exists elsewhere - and that includes Scotland!
Complain about this comment
Americans use twice as much of Earth's resources PER CAPITA as the nearest comparable group (other "Westerners") and five times as much as the world average.
What factors (excuses?) do you want to "take into consideration"?
Salaam, etc.
ed
Complain about this comment
#129 Ed. As Ronald Reagan said, 'there you go again'. We're not talking about the world's resources but energy use. I've already mentioned the factors which need to be considered, so I'm not going to repeat them. If you can't understand that geography, distance, weather conditions, manufacturing and so forth are all relevant when making a comparison, then that's too bad. There's a reason the numbers are different and the generalised "per capita" data which you provided doesn't indicate that. For it to be accurate, there must be a justification.
I managed to get into the Earth Trends site, but so far can only see the figures for 1999 - in which the residential consumption for the USA is 254,209 and that for Europe is 477,196 - not the other way around. The World's figure is 1,845,475. Granted, the UK's figure for residential consumption is 42,424 compared to the US' 254,209, but then the US has roughly five times as many people. Selective statistics don't assist your argument. I do see that the gross figures are as you say, but if there is to be a honest comparison, then the break-down should have been provided as well. Americans as individuals appear to be doing as well as their European counterparts - and with regard to the consumption of crude oil, Europe consumed 906,066 to America's 868,485. So all-in-all, I think America, with all its air-conditioned mansions, SUVs and supposed extravagant way of life has been doing rather well compared to Europe. Given the right presentation, statistics can prove almost anything.
Complain about this comment
David,
Excuses again.
Ever heard of "percapita"?
Complain about this comment
David
two wrongs make a right: trying to justify what we did by accusing someone else of doing the same. (e.g. how can you judge my actions when you do exactly the same thing?) The guilt of the accuser has no relevance to the discussion.
Ecological footprintsNote the US and UK figures. The USA percapita footprint is so big that despite its considerably larger area percapita, it has a larger percapita deficit than the crowded UK. The only bigger offender is the UAE, but I reckon they'd say they have the same "adverse environment" excuses....
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
David,seriously I gotta ask, you drive a 4 banger and from what you've said about the environment you seem to be heading in the right direction BUT,
you excuse America far too easily.
Non of YOUR statistical analysis is worth anything from what I can see.
I think it your age that clouds your judgement.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6367235.stm
You are one of the VERY few that believe america is not the problem.
Next time a wallmart or costco turns up trying to force their way into a european market they should be told to go away we have no time for american ideas on how to improve anyone elses lot.
#129 Ed. As Ronald Reagan said, 'there you go again'. We're not talking about the world's resources but energy use. I've already mentioned the factors which need to be considered, so I'm not going to repeat them. If you can't understand that geography, distance, weather conditions, manufacturing and so forth are all relevant when making a comparison, then that's too bad.
Energy use so when Iceland gets to full thermal power production will they still in your eye's be big polluters.?
It is possible that energy come from non polluting sources,that is what this new direction is about.
Resources are what effects the world.
It is burning of fuels and consumption of junk.USING UP THE EARTH.
You have yet again shown how far backwards you will bend to excuse your country from the fact FACT.. AMERICA HAS USED MORE THAN THE WORLD,if it were not for emergent nations with HUGE numbers of people,they would look so much worse.
Just accept america on the whole makes no effort.
Thermostats.
your house shows talk of thermostats that control the temp and TIME the temp is on are shown as a wonderful invention.THAT invention is one EUROPEANS HAVE BEEN USING FOR YEARS.
My god you must travel again(by sail boat) then you will see how far america is behind.
Just think how much energy gets wasted boiling dry "water boilers" in the state rather than having nice easy to use safer kettles.That turn off when they boil.convenience really but helps save(little ways help)
so demand your goverment interfer with peoples freedoms more, Force eco friendly housing solutions.Force car manufacturers and if the gov doesn't force them kick them out.
Stop saying low tax society is the be all and end all for politics,stop defending america's hole they dug.
Sign up swear on the deals and stop moaning about how hard you californians have it living with all that sun.
No new building in your area.?i doubt it.
are they all rammed earth structures etc. i doubt it.
do they have solar cells(even slightly inefficent one,I doubt it.
Do you cook in a solar Oven (a lot harder to do in the UK) free heat there. mongolians use them sometimes.
Just try ,if you already are try harder.
hasstle your neighbour for mowing twice a week because the irrigation keeps the lawn growing so well.
stop landscaping crews driving around servicing nature for you.
GET real BUDdy
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
David (130)
Comes to much the same thing, in fact, but I didn't know you had been appointed Chairman and thus empowered to define the terms of reference of this wee discussion.A vote of "no confidence" anyone?
Complain about this comment
Ed and David,
David and Ed,
Although I am full of confidence in you both, I am with Jack on this argument- Turn the thermostat down.....:- He says potatoe I say aardappel, I say pomme de terre he says spud etc etc etc Agree that you disagree, or agree that you are both right.
[ Geat minds think alike and Fools never differ ?}
Complain about this comment
The Enron loophole and McCain
Very revealing.
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
DC
"and with regard to the consumption of crude oil, Europe consumed 906,066 to America's 868,485. So all-in-all, I think America, with all its air-conditioned mansions, SUVs and supposed extravagant way of life has been doing rather well compared to Europe"
True statistics presented with bias show anything you want.
Europe population 723 million.-906,066
America population 301 million.-869,485
dividing the crude number by population we get
europe =0.00125
america=0.00288
So using your numbers america is way worse.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS