What we have here is a failure to communicate.

[hedgehog]

Jon Stewart and Rachel Maddow both recently made the point that every President since Nixon has called for "energy independence". Maddow also went on to make it clear that all too often, "energy Independence" really meant "Drill, baby, drill!"

I believe that when Obama says" energy independence", he wants to see the Us move from all fossil fuels to renewables. He does believe that that transition involves a short term dependence on coal and nuclear power, something I would argue against.

I also believe that Obama will get no where on this unless he manages to convince people he really does want to get away from fossil fuels and brings overwhelming public pressure on those Senators in the pocket of Big Oil.

[rucky]

1. I'm afraid transition involves a short term dependence on fossil fuels.

Everything depends on private industry's willingness to make the investments. The only thing the government can really do is promote is reasearch & incentivise investment in adopting the technologies that will lead to cleaner, cheaper and renewable. Every penny we spend to fund oil exploration and subsidize coal could be used for this, and still, if industry doesn't see the $$$ value in investing, they won't. But they won't just go away, either. What we're asking industry to do is close their industrial plants and build from scratch, using technologies that aren't yet fully developed. In a global recession.

There are some things industry has been willing to do: Adapt their existing fossil fuel burning industrial plants to accept supplemental forms of fuel and sources of power: solar, wind - sweet! everybody's on board to different extents. How about refuse, sewage, biomass, etc? These are turnkey solutions; things we can do right now to at least partially replace fossil fuels.

Ironically, industry is open to using them more than the "all or nothing" environmental advocates like Earthjustice, who actively push against waste-to-fuel - activating a groundswell of misinformed NIMBYs every time a cement plant files a permit to burn Refuse or Tire Derived fuel. They want to see cement production go away completely, but all they've succeeded in doing is encouraging them to continue burning conventional fuels.

[hedgehog]

2. My understanding is that the transition fuels would allow the existing centralized

grid to continue to operate while we build the de-centralized grid and long range transmission lines (Lots of wind power in the Dakotas, not much demand.) I'm just wondering if we wouldn't be better off just putting all our efforts into the new grid.

[rucky]

3. I think we need to do both.

And we can go a long way in doing it faster if we stopped subsidising the fossil fuel industry.

[rocktivity]

4. DING DING DING! Rucky, your our grand prize winner!

We can go a long way in doing it faster if we stopped subsidizing the fossil fuel industry.

Why do you THINK we've had no movement on energy independence since 1974? THE OIL INDUSTRY DOESN'T WANT IT because it will take money out of their pockets! Why do you think we had no movement health care for so long? THE HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY DIDN'T WANT IT unless it wouldn't take money out of their pockets! Why do you think immigration reform is taking so long? BIG BUSINESS DOESN'T WANT IT because paying decent wages would take money out of their pockets!

Not only government have to stop subsidizing industry, we have to stop industry from subsidizing our government!

:headbang:
rocktivity

[Cha]

5. And the President needs our help

too! We need to call and write our representatives. He's always saying he can't do this alone.