Well, once again Hillary has "punked" Obama. Only this time, his wife stood there and applauded her while she did it! I would like to say that I was amazed or astounded by Hillary's speech tonight, but what can I say. I wasn't. Hillary did a great job of opining on her reasons for running for office (insert gratuitus Obama parallel somewhere around here) and, if you believe her, scared the bejesus out of anyone dumb enough to vote for "No we can't McCain". Through the entire speech, I heard nothing at all from Mrs. Clinton - nor did I expect to - about what Obama would actually do for us. All-in-all, the tone of her speach, including her tight-lipped demenor, were of begrudging support for Barak, because she has to, rather than because she really beleived him to be the best candidate for the office.
Hillary does not believe this to be the case. She believes she is the best candidate, and while she must offer her support, she hopes that he will not win. If he does, she will have to wait 8 years to take her rightful place as Queen of America.
It isn't just a Hillary problem. It seems that none of the Democrats that I have heard speak really know what to say about Barak that would show us he has any clue what he is doing. I suspect this is probably because they may, somewhere in their muddled heads, remember the economic policies that brought about the great depression and the Carter induced recession of the late 70's and early 80's. We hear grand talk about how Barak is the only hope if we are to survive the next four years, as if McCain is going to somehow destroy the country in his first - possibly only- term in office.
We hear great accolades about how Obama's vision of change brings back warm memories of the Kennedy era (and even positive references to the Carter era). The fact is, Democrats want to re-write history. Kennedy and Carter were both failed Presidents. Carter was one of the most disliked presidents ever.
The Kennedy administration was responsible for the Bay of Pigs, and, in large part, responsible for our failure in Veitnam. As un-PC as it is to say so, what made Kennedy such a great President was the bullet to the back of his head. Had Kennedy not been assassinated, he too would have been remembered for his failed economic and foreign policies. His assassination cut short his ability to really muck things up and left the country mourning over a president that, like Obama, the country still had a school-girl crush on.
Every speech so far, including Michelle Obama's speech, has issued glowing praise but little content. Each speaker has told how McCain will give us more of the same old same old, while Obama will bring us change. I particularly liked the Senator from Montana, whose body language was right out of a car-sales "lot lizard" training video. He even gestured to the audience to come closer, as if he was going to whisper some great secret, only to make a wise crack about McCain, which he then congratulated himself on by saying "this is good stuff"!
True, I am not winnowing through the speeches and providing any great critical analysis of the talking points. The truth is, I haven't found any yet. Basically, all they have said is this:
McCain is going to destroy the country.
Obama is a great American, Leader, and Patriot
and, We are all so spiritual.
Every speech has plugged lines that hit these three points. None of the speeches so far has provided any real evidence of any of the three. The truth is, the way they have interjected faith into this convention makes it look like a hat that is three sizes too small. It is just precariously perched up there, begging the question... How do you get that to stick?
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Critical analysis of a Reader's Comment
I have been saying all along that I would be presenting a critical analysis of comments from my readers. Well, so far, we have only one reader comment to work with but it is a comment worthy of analysis.
AMW Writes by E-mail:
Ok Kenny, you asked for it -
As the last election showed, the popular vote is nothing but a facade to make you believe you have some say in your government. We live under a fascist regime controlled by large corporations, and whether or not Obama or McCain or Hillary or Jesus gets elected next won't change a thing. Exercise your right NOT TO VOTE!
"The land of the free? Who ever told you that is your enemy." - Rage Against the Machine
-AWM
Ok Kenny, you asked for it -
As the last election showed, the popular vote is nothing but a facade to make you believe you have some say in your government. We live under a fascist regime controlled by large corporations, and whether or not Obama or McCain or Hillary or Jesus gets elected next won't change a thing. Exercise your right NOT TO VOTE!
"The land of the free? Who ever told you that is your enemy." - Rage Against the Machine
-AWM
This is an interesting assessment. Apparently our government is a fascist regime, according to the beliefs of this particular reader. Let's start by conducting a logical assessment of what a fascist regime is: an authoritarian and nationalistic extreme right-wing system of government and social organization. According to the dictionary in my computer (which history supports) This term was first used to describe the totalitarian regime of Mussolini. The Nazi and Franco regimes were also fascist regimes. Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one ethnic or national group, a contempt for democracy, and an insistence in obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach.
Let us consider this. Do we have a totalitarian government? Not that I can tell. In fact, our president is unable to legislate, leaving the responsibility of making laws in the hands of those who are Constitutionally responsible (the legislative branch). This branch is balanced by the executive branch's veto power, and the judicial branch's constitutional scrutiny. True, there has been growing concern about the Judiciary legislating from the bench, with several instances of this taking place over the years - Roe Vs. Wade being a prime example. However, this is an issue that the public, and in return, many members of our federal government have been pushing to correct. At no point in our history, today included, has the executive branch ever passed a single law.
Is there any indication that the federal government is seizing power from states and localities? Not that I can tell. Other than pork barrel spending and federal taxes, I see little local influence from the federal government at all.
Do we have a government that sponsors ethnic or national group supremacy? Absolutely not. While some would claim that racism is a matter of governmental policy, the facts do not support it. Notwithstanding isolated incidents within certain communities, there is no evidence that racism or any other discriminatory practice is a matter of federal, state, or even local government policy.
Ok, now lets look at the conspiratorial issue. AWM at least didn't use the term THEY. Instead, he carefully chose a giant entity that is the equivalent of THEY - large corporations. Are large corporations selecting our presidents for us, and perpetuating a grand scale facade in the illusion that our votes actually count? Not a chance. Here is why. In the last 8 years, we have seen the passing of some of the most restricting legislation on US corporations ever. This would be the Sarbanes-Oxley act. This act was passed to regulate the accounting and reporting of earnings (and losses) of corporations and to create a transparency into the business practices of public corporations large and small. I should also point out that the largest corporations are all publicly owned (that's us!). This means that each share of stock has a vote in the polices and practices of the corporation. I receive statements frequently from corporations whose stock I own, providing me the opportunity to vote on issues, board members, etc.. I do vote my stocks, as do many others. Meanwhile, the US government has managed to get in the way of large corporations (often to the disadvantage of the consumer). Two excellent examples of this would be the XM-Sirius merger and the continual stalling of the Pelosi flunkies on the discussion of domestic drilling. The XM-Sirius merger was held up for 18 months until congressmen and women with special interests could castrate the two companies; nearly guaranteeing their failure as a merged company.
Meanwhile, Pelosi and her cronies have done everything they can to prevent a vote on offshore drilling, which would boost profits of the "Big Oil" companies while increasing supply and driving down prices for the US consumer. If large corporations are in control of the country, why are these corporations constantly fighting bad and overly restrictive legislation, subject to good legislation that is good for the consumer and shareholder, but unwieldy and expensive for the corporation, and at the same time, paying the largest percentage of federal and state taxes of any group in this country?
One must also ask, if we have a fascist regime, what is the purpose of the illusion of democracy, when military might -the political tool of choice for fascists- would be more efficient and productive.
AWM's statement "Exercise your right not to vote" may sound noble, but it is nothing short of irresponsible. A better quote, AWM, would be. Bad politicians are elected by educated voters who did not vote.
The pretense that our votes do not count is perpetuated by the Democrats, who, when dissatisfied with the outcome of the last election, requested a re-count as was their right. They received the recount and then issues were identified and carefully worked through regarding the accuracy of the recording of individual votes resulting from problems with aging voting machines. The recount did not take the vote away from the Democrats, it confirmed that they never had it. However, the uninformed are willing to accept the Democratic party's baseless whining that the election was stolen. In fact, they now claim that both the initial Bush election in 2000 and his re-election in 2008 were stolen elections. How they come to that conclusion is beyond me.
The most I can say, is that if you believe that your vote does not count, PLEASE STAY HOME!!!! The only thing worse than not voting is casting an uninformed vote. However, if you do not vote; remember, whoever wins, you are as responsible for their being there as those that voted for them.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Media Reaction to the Born Alive "Mistatement"
I watched Hannity & Colmes this evening and the subject of Obama's mistatement was brought up. The hosts had two speakers on taking sides either pro or con Obama regarding this discussion. What ensued, I can only call a critical thinker's nightmare - or a critical thinking Blogger's cannon fodder! Hannity summarized the same comments I made regarding Obama's claims that he would have voted for the Federal bill had he been in office when it was passed, and the claim that the reason he did not vote for, and later killed the 1095 bill in the Illinois State senate was because it did not contain the same neutrality clause. Sean Hannity was holding copies of both clauses in his hand during this and says "I have both of them right here. They are exactly the same".
Hannity then pointed out that even his campaign spokesperson had come out and said Obama's claim was a mistatement. To which Hannitiy asks his pro-Obama guest; "So, he lied?" The guest replies that no, Alan Keyes lied. and besides, the state of Illinois already had a "botched abortion" law on the books! And also, the Illinois bill did not have the same neutrality clause in it as the Federal bill. Now I am not going to go through the whole exchange, you can probably get transcripts from www.hannity.com if you really wanted to hear the whole mud bath, but I do want to point out some of what got my teeth on edge.
Both Colmes and the pro-Obama guest continue to state emphatically that the two clauses are not the same. Shouting it louder and louder in an attempt to drown out the other guest and Hannity's statement " I have both of them right here. They are IDENTICAL! This is indesputable". When this tactic does not work, the pro-Obama guest says "Come on, do you really think Obama wanted Stanek's baby to die?" Colmes immediately jumps on that wagon with a similar question, which he asks over and over as if saying so would make us believe that this was the opposition's position. Colmes repeatedly asks "Do you really think Obama wants to kill babies?"
The first issue is the claim that two documents which are obviously identical are not. This is an error in observation fallacy known as an inductive hyperbole. The individual is stating a position more strongly than the evidence supports. In this case, the individual is shouting a position that the evidence indisputably contradicts. How hard-headed do you have to be to ignore evidence that was so crystal-clear that Obama's own campaign spokesperson had to come out and issue a statement indicating that Obama's claim the Illinois bill was not the same as the Federal bill was a "mistatement" and that the two were, in fact, identical?
The second issue I have is the clever use of a "post hoc ergo procter hoc" argument that if one believes that these two bills are identical, that one must believe Obama wants babies to die! No one thinks this is the case - Ok, there are probably a few nut-cases that do but not any reasonable person. By posing such an obsurd question, the individual forces the other to concede the point by agreeing that this must not be true. It then stands to reason that the previous is also not true. Therefore, if Obama does not want babies to die, he must not have mistated his reason for not voting for and then later killing this bill. Therefore, Obama did not lie, and anyone who says he did must be the liar. Apparently, no other reason could possibly exist!
The third issue I have was the false statement that Illinois already has laws on the books that make the need for this law irrelevant. First, this is only intended to draw attention away from the argument at hand, which was why Obama "mispoke" regarding his reasons for not voting for this bill. Second, the statement does not prove out as Illinois did not have such laws on the books This is why Christ Hospital was not found not to have committed any illegal act by leaving live babies from induced premature labor (not a "botched abortion", but an actual live birth) in a utility closet to die without any care at all. You may recall the case in California where a girl left her newborn baby in a dumpster to die just hours after birth. She was prosecuted for her acts. Apparently, the same acts performed in an Illinois Hospital are not criminal.
This was the reason for this bill. The individual who stated that laws on the books were already adequate - Oh, Obama has used this line too, when it suited him - is counting on no one being able to call him on this argument. If you do, he will just find another fallacy to divert your attention.
These are the failures in logic that we are inundated with every day by the media and few are ever called out. Hannity did his best to present his case. Part of that case, I believe was that the far Left cannot and will not admit they are wrong, even when the evidence is staring them in the face!
I know, the same can be said of the Right as well, and I welcome my readers - all 4 of you - to provide any example of this you may wish. I am and always will be a Conservative (which puts me on the Right) but that does not mean that I cannot accept the fact that logic fallacies are used by both sides. Provide an objective argument and point out the fallacy I will gladly discuss it here on my site! Remember, use critical thinking and reason in your posting. If you see that I have not done so, by all means, call me on it; right here, where everyone can see it and I will objectively defend my position or admit my fault, which ever the case may require.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Barak Obama's Opposition of the Iraq War
It is no secret Obama is "the only candidate that did not vote for the Iraq war". We all know that. Obama has made it clear from the very beginning that he opposed the war and was the only one not to vote for it. This is ABSOLUTELY TRUE!!!! However, the application of this truth is a lie. Obama may have been opposed to the war in opinion, but he was no more capable of voting this opinion in the US Senate than you or I were.
Obama and his campaign are counting on the fact that Sheeple have short memories. The Iraq War was ratified by Congress in February of 2003. The war officially began March 19, 2003. Obama was elected into the US Senate in 2004 and took office in 2005. Unfortunately, those that oppose the war today are more than willing to believe that he went against the grain and voted against the war. One has to ask though, why is no one talking about this?
This one position has been a primary tenet of his campaign, yet no one pays any attention to it because those that do remember and have the ability to point it out - the Liberal Media, cannot bear to tarnish his halo! He beat Hillary, in part, by comparing her "flip" on the war with his consistent opposition to it. The reality is that we really cannot know how he would have voted because he could not have voted at all. I can claim that I am against something all I want, but unless I take some form of action demonstrating this in a meaningful way, that claim is both unproven and irrelevant. My point is that this primary platform for his campaign is yet another total falsehood.
I had considered bringing this up before, but decided to push on to more current issues. However, yesterday's Saddleback debate brought this right up to the forefront again. Rev. Warren asked both candidates what their most gut-wrenching decision was. Obama's statetment was perfectly orchestrated to soothe those that still support the Iraq war, while satisfying those that oppose it. Obama's statement was that his most gut-wrenching decision was to oppose the Iraq war, because he knew that Saddam was a real threat to the US (Funny, that was the justification FOR the war), and that Saddam was a really bad guy. Obama's statement suggests that he actually had to take some risk in his opposition of the war. Since his reputation and political career could not be at risk and he really took no action at all, how was this a gut-wrenching decision?
I could introduce a red-herring, and bring up McCain's decision - which could have actually cost him his life - but I won't. I will, however, bring up a decision that Illinois State Senator Obama made that must have required some serious nail-biting; so much so, that he has tried to hide and down-play it ever since.
In 2001, Illinois State Senator Patrick O'Malley introduced Senate Bill 1095 "whose scope was carefully limited and whose language was completely unambiguous" (Freddososo, 2008, p. 195). This bill was crafted as a "Born-Alive" bill, intended to identify any child that leaves its mother's womb as a living person and entitled to protection under the law. Obama opposed this bill, which even NARAL stood silent on. He was the only senator to speak out against the bill, claiming that it would put abortion rights at risk. In this case, Obama actually did take an action that showed what his opinion was. Obama stated that the bill would not pass "constitutional muster" because the equal protection clause does not allow someone to kill a child, and if these live-born babies are considered children, this would be an antiabortion bill. (Freddoso, 2008, p. 196). However, when it came down to the vote, his convictions here were not sufficient for him to give a "no" vote. Instead, he chose a safer approach and voted "present". In 2001 a nearly identical bill was passed unanimously in federal legislation. The only difference was to add a "neutrality clause" that would ensure the crystal clear bill could not in any way threaten to overturn Roe vs. Wade. The Illinois bill was re-introduced to Obama's health subcommittee in 2003 (coincidentally, the same year Obama was supposedly opposing the war in the US Senate). It never made it to the floor for vote, however. In the shadows of his committee, he quietly killed the bill.
Now, we could say that Obama's speech in 2002 against the Iraq war was a clear indication of his position; that by this we can assume how he would have voted. Not true. I submit to you that Obama has on numerous occasions spoken out in opposition of some rather good legislation only to vote "present" rather than support his position with a "no" vote. In the Illinois State Senate, Obama voted present 137 times! Obama's track record suggests that he would have either followed what was popular (or fit the Democratic Party line) or he would have abstained from issuing either a yes or no vote. I think it is safe to say, that when the Iraq war was so popular, Obama would not have voted "no" unless he could somehow foresee that the popularity of the war would falter and that having voted against it would work in his political favor.
Ok, so he is no angel, just another politician, but does that mean that because of this one little bill way back in 2003, we should not trust Obama? Yes, and as Glenn Beck would say "Here's how I got there". As quietly as he could, Obama killed the revised bill in his healthcare subcommittee and ever since has provided a consistent response to why he did not let the bill reach the floor for a vote. The fawning media has consistently accepted this as true and it as been quietly kept shut away in the campaign closet. Until just this week!
On Saturday, Obama stated in a CBN interview that he killed the bill because it lacked the neutrality clause found in the Federal bill; which he had previously stated he would have voted for if he had been in the US Sentate when it was passed. He then told the interviewer that he was offended by those that continue to raise this issue. 24 hours later, a spokesman for his campaign indicated that his comments about the bill's provisions were a misstatement (read - LIE!), that the two bills did indeed contain identical neutrality clauses. Given that this specific bill is one he has been interviewed on several times and even found it important enough to justify his position in his book The Audacity of Hope, it seems highly improbable that he would make a mistake on why he took the position in the first place.
I know I am spending what seems to be an inordinate amount of time picking on Obama. I cannot help that. I am a Conservative and make no apologies for being one. Having said that, I apply logic and reason to my decisions as to where each candidate fits my Conservative values. In some respects, McCain rides close to the center. Where it matters, such as his position on when life begins (McCain states it begins at conception!), McCain is most definately Conservative.
Remember, the President does not create law. He can veto, and he has the power to nominate Supreme Court Justices, but he must allow the legislative branch to create legislation. As such, I know that I don't have to agree with all of a candidate's positions to vote for him or her. What I need, is the ability to trust their judgment and decision-making capability.
Obama and his campaign are counting on the fact that Sheeple have short memories. The Iraq War was ratified by Congress in February of 2003. The war officially began March 19, 2003. Obama was elected into the US Senate in 2004 and took office in 2005. Unfortunately, those that oppose the war today are more than willing to believe that he went against the grain and voted against the war. One has to ask though, why is no one talking about this?
This one position has been a primary tenet of his campaign, yet no one pays any attention to it because those that do remember and have the ability to point it out - the Liberal Media, cannot bear to tarnish his halo! He beat Hillary, in part, by comparing her "flip" on the war with his consistent opposition to it. The reality is that we really cannot know how he would have voted because he could not have voted at all. I can claim that I am against something all I want, but unless I take some form of action demonstrating this in a meaningful way, that claim is both unproven and irrelevant. My point is that this primary platform for his campaign is yet another total falsehood.
I had considered bringing this up before, but decided to push on to more current issues. However, yesterday's Saddleback debate brought this right up to the forefront again. Rev. Warren asked both candidates what their most gut-wrenching decision was. Obama's statetment was perfectly orchestrated to soothe those that still support the Iraq war, while satisfying those that oppose it. Obama's statement was that his most gut-wrenching decision was to oppose the Iraq war, because he knew that Saddam was a real threat to the US (Funny, that was the justification FOR the war), and that Saddam was a really bad guy. Obama's statement suggests that he actually had to take some risk in his opposition of the war. Since his reputation and political career could not be at risk and he really took no action at all, how was this a gut-wrenching decision?
I could introduce a red-herring, and bring up McCain's decision - which could have actually cost him his life - but I won't. I will, however, bring up a decision that Illinois State Senator Obama made that must have required some serious nail-biting; so much so, that he has tried to hide and down-play it ever since.
In 2001, Illinois State Senator Patrick O'Malley introduced Senate Bill 1095 "whose scope was carefully limited and whose language was completely unambiguous" (Freddososo, 2008, p. 195). This bill was crafted as a "Born-Alive" bill, intended to identify any child that leaves its mother's womb as a living person and entitled to protection under the law. Obama opposed this bill, which even NARAL stood silent on. He was the only senator to speak out against the bill, claiming that it would put abortion rights at risk. In this case, Obama actually did take an action that showed what his opinion was. Obama stated that the bill would not pass "constitutional muster" because the equal protection clause does not allow someone to kill a child, and if these live-born babies are considered children, this would be an antiabortion bill. (Freddoso, 2008, p. 196). However, when it came down to the vote, his convictions here were not sufficient for him to give a "no" vote. Instead, he chose a safer approach and voted "present". In 2001 a nearly identical bill was passed unanimously in federal legislation. The only difference was to add a "neutrality clause" that would ensure the crystal clear bill could not in any way threaten to overturn Roe vs. Wade. The Illinois bill was re-introduced to Obama's health subcommittee in 2003 (coincidentally, the same year Obama was supposedly opposing the war in the US Senate). It never made it to the floor for vote, however. In the shadows of his committee, he quietly killed the bill.
Now, we could say that Obama's speech in 2002 against the Iraq war was a clear indication of his position; that by this we can assume how he would have voted. Not true. I submit to you that Obama has on numerous occasions spoken out in opposition of some rather good legislation only to vote "present" rather than support his position with a "no" vote. In the Illinois State Senate, Obama voted present 137 times! Obama's track record suggests that he would have either followed what was popular (or fit the Democratic Party line) or he would have abstained from issuing either a yes or no vote. I think it is safe to say, that when the Iraq war was so popular, Obama would not have voted "no" unless he could somehow foresee that the popularity of the war would falter and that having voted against it would work in his political favor.
Ok, so he is no angel, just another politician, but does that mean that because of this one little bill way back in 2003, we should not trust Obama? Yes, and as Glenn Beck would say "Here's how I got there". As quietly as he could, Obama killed the revised bill in his healthcare subcommittee and ever since has provided a consistent response to why he did not let the bill reach the floor for a vote. The fawning media has consistently accepted this as true and it as been quietly kept shut away in the campaign closet. Until just this week!
On Saturday, Obama stated in a CBN interview that he killed the bill because it lacked the neutrality clause found in the Federal bill; which he had previously stated he would have voted for if he had been in the US Sentate when it was passed. He then told the interviewer that he was offended by those that continue to raise this issue. 24 hours later, a spokesman for his campaign indicated that his comments about the bill's provisions were a misstatement (read - LIE!), that the two bills did indeed contain identical neutrality clauses. Given that this specific bill is one he has been interviewed on several times and even found it important enough to justify his position in his book The Audacity of Hope, it seems highly improbable that he would make a mistake on why he took the position in the first place.
I know I am spending what seems to be an inordinate amount of time picking on Obama. I cannot help that. I am a Conservative and make no apologies for being one. Having said that, I apply logic and reason to my decisions as to where each candidate fits my Conservative values. In some respects, McCain rides close to the center. Where it matters, such as his position on when life begins (McCain states it begins at conception!), McCain is most definately Conservative.
Remember, the President does not create law. He can veto, and he has the power to nominate Supreme Court Justices, but he must allow the legislative branch to create legislation. As such, I know that I don't have to agree with all of a candidate's positions to vote for him or her. What I need, is the ability to trust their judgment and decision-making capability.
The more I look at Obama, the more I find that his statements lack reason and logic, ignore the facts and sometimes - fabricate them. When I winnow through the misrepresentations, and misdirections, I find this candidate is intentionally attempting to hide his extreme liberal agenda to secure votes. I feel that as a Conservative, I have an obligation to point out these issues as I see them. Doing so should reinforce the point that not voting this election year is NOT an option for Conservatives or Liberals. I, for one cannot vote for a candidate that consistently lies to justify or hide his actions, associations, and decisions. This should be true for any informed voter, regardless of whether you are Liberal or Conservative. As a Conservative I also know that not voting for McCain because he is not Conservative enough, is the same as voting for a candidate whose views we do know are views I primarily disagree with.
As always, I welcome all comments and will respond to those that are posted. Please apply logic and reason if you are going to state a position. If possible, provide some indication of research. If you quote someone, please provide the reference so the source is adequately credited and others can find the information too. I believe this to be essential to having any meaningful dialog regardless of one's position.
References
Freddoso, D. (2008) The truth against Barak Obama. Regnery Publishing, Washington, D.C.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
McCain Energy Plan
I promised to discuss McCain's energy plan, so here it is. I have to tell you in advance, that after reading his plan, it is much easier to tell what McCain's plan entails and what he envisions the outcome will be. I have to also say that, for the most part, I agree with him. Not entirely though. See my comments interspersed below:
Expanding Domestic Oil And Natural Gas Exploration And Production
John McCain Will Commit Our Country To Expanding Domestic Oil Exploration. The current federal moratorium on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf stands in the way of energy exploration and production. John McCain believes it is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and to put our own reserves to use. There is no easier or more direct way to prove to the world that we will no longer be subject to the whims of others than to expand our production capabilities. We have trillions of dollars worth of oil and gas reserves in the U.S. at a time we are exporting hundreds of billions of dollars a year overseas to buy energy. This is the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind. We should keep more of our dollars here in the U.S., lessen our foreign dependency, increase our domestic supplies, and reduce our trade deficit - 41% of which is due to oil imports. John McCain proposes to cooperate with the states and the Department of Defense in the decisions to develop these resources.
John McCain Believes In Promoting And Expanding The Use Of Our Domestic Supplies Of Natural Gas. When people are hurting, and struggling to afford gasoline, food, and other necessities, common sense requires that we draw upon America's own vast reserves of oil and natural gas. Within the United States we have tremendous reserves of natural gas. The Outer Continental Shelf alone contains 77 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas. It is time that we capitalize on these significant resources and build the infrastructure needed to transport this important component of electricity generation and transportation fuel around the country.
The argument for domestic drilling is compelling for more than one reason. Even if we have decided that the day of oil should have come and gone, it is not gone yet. Our entire economy and that of the rest of the world is heavily dependent on the availability of oil. Even if we eliminated all energy uses for oil, we would only reduce world demand by 45%. Why is this? As I mentioned in previous discussion, only 19 gallons of a barrel of oil actually goes into making fuel of any kind. The rest is used for petrochemical applications that make up the raw materials and/or components of nearly everything you can imagine, from the keyboard I am typing on, to the water bottles we drink out of. Even our clothing and food supplies come from petrochemical applications of that remaining 55% of the barrel of oil. Until the world develops technologies that can replace petrochemical-based products, there will always be a growing demand for oil. That is not to say that finding alternative energy sources won't help, but it will not eliminate our need entireley.
Taking Action Now To Break Our Dependency On Foreign Oil By Reforming Our Transportation Sector. The Nation Cannot Reduce Its Dependency On Oil Unless We Change How We Power Our Transportation Sector.
John McCain's Clean Car Challenge. John McCain will issue a Clean Car Challenge to the automakers of America, in the form of a single and substantial tax credit for the consumer based on the reduction of carbon emissions. He will commit a $5,000 tax credit for each and every customer who buys a zero carbon emission car, encouraging automakers to be first on the market with these cars in order to capitalize on the consumer incentives. For other vehicles, a graduated tax credit will apply so that the lower the carbon emissions, the higher the tax credit.
Ok, now in my previous post, I trashed Obama's $7,000.00 tax credit as being an insufficient gesture that would not really provide sufficient cost justification to purchase zero emission vehicles. I must admit that when I read this part of McCain's plan, I started to gear up to nail him to the wall too. Unfortunately, I think he's got a point here. McCain is proposing to offer the tax credits, not to the consumer, but to the Automakers! Now before I start getting hate-mail about being a water-boy for big corporations, hear me out. While the tax credits offer only a fraction of the credit amount as real cash-in-hand benefit to the individual, the cumulative credits offer substantial benefit to the Automakers. Why is this better? It is better because the more financial incentives they have to build, market and sell, the more cost benefit the consumer will see in the form of lower price vehicles, greater innovation, faster time to market, and more product choices in the market. Applied in this manner, a lesser tax credit than proposed in Obama's plan. I agree with this approach, despite it being a “tax cut for big business”.
John McCain Will Propose A $300 Million Prize To Improve Battery Technology For Full Commercial Development Of Plug-In Hybrid And Fully Electric Automobiles. A $300 million prize should be awarded for the development of a battery package that has the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars. That battery should deliver a power source at 30 percent of the current costs. At $300 million, the prize is one dollar for every man, woman and child in this country - and a small price to pay for breaking our dependence on oil.
Again, I agree. This is not a gimmick, as its opponents would have you believe. After all, did we not just recently see private industry fly into space for just such incentives? Now, the CEO of Virgin Airlines has also recently debuted his commercial space craft. Tourism for the rich, sure, but it moves us ever closer to private space exploration. The reality is, these prize offerings work, they cost nothing until success is achieved, place all the risk in the hands of the free market, where it belongs, and stimulate limitless innovative potential.
John McCain Supports Flex-Fuel Vehicles (FFVs) And Believes They Should Play A Greater Role In Our Transportation Sector. In just three years, Brazil went from new cars sales that were about 5 percent FFVs to over 70 percent of new vehicles that were FFVs. American automakers have committed to make 50 percent of their cars FFVs by 2012. John McCain calls on automakers to make a more rapid and complete switch to FFVs.
John McCain Believes Alcohol-Based Fuels Hold Great Promise As Both An Alternative To Gasoline And As A Means of Expanding Consumers' Choices. Some choices such as ethanol are on the market right now. The second generation of alcohol-based fuels like cellulosic ethanol, which won't compete with food crops, are showing great potential.
Today, Isolationist Tariffs And Wasteful Special Interest Subsidies Are Not Moving Us Toward An Energy Solution. We need to level the playing field and eliminate mandates, subsidies, tariffs and price supports that focus exclusively on corn-based ethanol and prevent the development of market-based solutions which would provide us with better options for our fuel needs.
Now here, I have to call McCain to study up on just what Alcohol-based fuels cost us. For starters, it takes huge acreages to grow fuel resources. This means either the clearing of forest land, or the occupation of food plot land for fuel crops. Even if no food-based alcohols are used, this will drive up the price of food, create shortages, and further damage the environment. Second, it takes 1700 gallons of water to make one gallon of ethanol, regardless of whether it is cellulosic or corn-based. Another environmental mistep. In addition, ethanol does not burn as efficiently and creates several times more greenhouse emissions than fossil fuels. Having said that, my opinion is that alcohol should be out of the question as an alternative fuel. We should be using something that is much more plentiful, easier to get, easier on the environment and more efficient. Natural gas is the way to go. Stick to that, electric, and hybrid technologies, and there would be no need for the failed concept of ethanol as a fuel.
John McCain Will Effectively Enforce Existing CAFE Standards.
John McCain has long supported CAFE standards - the mileage requirements that automobile manufacturers' cars must meet. Some carmakers ignore these standards, pay a small financial penalty, and add it to the price of their cars. John McCain believes that the penalties for not following these standards must be effective enough to compel all carmakers to produce fuel-efficient vehicles.
This seems an unnecessary step. The market is already demanding greater fuel efficiency and American Automakers are paying the price for not having enough product options that offer high fuel efficiency. I don't see the need for this step and, in my opinion, it is adversarial. Lets focus on encouraging the free market to do what it does best, meet demand.
Investing In Clean, Alternative Sources Of Energy
John McCain Believes That The U.S. Must Become A Leader In A New International Green Economy. Green jobs and green technology will be vital to our economic future. There is no reason that the U.S. should not be a leader in developing and deploying these new technologies.
John McCain Will Commit $2 Billion Annually To Advancing Clean Coal Technologies. Coal produces the majority of our electricity today. Some believe that marketing viable clean coal technologies could be over 15 years away. John McCain believes that this is too long to wait, and we need to commit significant federal resources to the science, research and development that advance this critical technology. Once commercialized, the U.S. can then export these technologies to countries like China that are committed to using their coal - creating new American jobs and allowing the U.S. to play a greater role in the international green economy.
This is what I am talking about. Encouraging the free market to find innovative ways to solve the energy crisis and the environmental impact of energy production. Enough said.
John McCain Will Put His Administration On Track To Construct 45 New Nuclear Power Plants By 2030 With The Ultimate Goal Of Eventually Constructing 100 New Plants. Nuclear power is a proven, zero-emission source of energy, and it is time we recommit to advancing our use of nuclear power. Currently, nuclear power produces 20% of our power, but the U.S. has not started construction on a new nuclear power plant in over 30 years. China, India and Russia have goals of building a combined total of over 100 new plants and we should be able to do the same. It is also critical that the U.S. be able to build the components for these plants and reactors within our country so that we are not dependent on foreign suppliers with long wait times to move forward with our nuclear plans.
Obama says that he would support nuclear energy if we could find a way to do it safely and cleanly. The problem with that position is, the technology already exists. Our nuclear powerplants are incredibly safe. They are not the most efficient, however. The French have a process by which they are able to recycle over 90% of the “spent” fuel rods from a nuclear power plant, to re-use for further production of nuclear energy. This technology would permit us to build new plants now, that would produce very little nuclear waste, it doesn't get much cleaner or safer!
John McCain Will Establish A Permanent Tax Credit Equal To 10 Percent Of Wages Spent On R&D. This reform will simplify the tax code, reward activity in the U.S., and make us more competitive with other countries. A permanent credit will provide an incentive to innovate and remove uncertainty. At a time when our companies need to be more competitive, we need to provide a permanent incentive to innovate, and remove the uncertainty now hanging over businesses as they make R&D investment decisions.
I hope that this extends to all R&D and not just energy. This is precisely what we need to stimulate innovation in this country and provide incentive to make American companies more competitive in the global market.
John McCain Will Encourage The Market For Alternative, Low Carbon Fuels Such As Wind, Hydro And Solar Power. According to the Department of Energy, wind could provide as much as one-fifth of electricity by 2030. The U.S. solar energy industry continued its double-digit annual growth rate in 2006. To develop these and other sources of renewable energy will require that we rationalize the current patchwork of temporary tax credits that provide commercial feasibility. John McCain believes in an even-handed system of tax credits that will remain in place until the market transforms sufficiently to the point where renewable energy no longer merits the taxpayers' dollars.
These incentives are not enough. The average home owner could install a solar system on their home today that would be capable of powering that home with excess to spare. However, the cost of these systems is so high that even with tax incentives, the return on the investment takes 5 years or more. In states where the electric companies are not required to pay peak prices for the excess electricity, it is nearly impossible to find anyone selling these systems because no one can justify the expense of buying one. If ever there were a subsidy I would support, this is the one. Let's find a way to make the purchase of a solar system so financially attractive that it is almost impossible not to justify installing one!
Protecting Our Environment And Addressing Climate Change: A Sound Energy Strategy Must Include A Solid Environmental Foundation
John McCain Proposes A Cap-And-Trade System That Would Set Limits On Greenhouse Gas Emissions While Encouraging The Development Of Low-Cost Compliance Options. A climate cap-and-trade mechanism would set a limit on greenhouse gas emissions and allow entities to buy and sell rights to emit, similar to the successful acid rain trading program of the early 1990s. The key feature of this mechanism is that it allows the market to decide and encourage the lowest-cost compliance options.
How Does A Cap-And-Trade System Work? A cap-and-trade system harnesses human ingenuity in the pursuit of alternatives to carbon-based fuels. Market participants are allotted total permits equal to the cap on greenhouse gas emissions. If they can invent, improve, or acquire a way to reduce their emissions, they can sell their extra permits for cash. The profit motive will coordinate the efforts of venture capitalists, corporate planners, entrepreneurs, and environmentalists on the common motive of reducing emissions.
Greenhouse Gas Emission Targets And Timetables:
2012: Return Emissions To 2005 Levels (18 Percent Above 1990 Levels)
2020: Return Emissions To 1990 Levels (15 Percent Below 2005 Levels)
2030: 22 Percent Below 1990 Levels (34 Percent Below 2005 Levels)
2050: 60 Percent Below 1990 Levels (66 Percent Below 2005 Levels)
The Cap-And-Trade System Would Allow For The Gradual Reduction Of Emissions. The cap-and-trade system would encompass electric power, transportation fuels, commercial business, and industrial business - sectors responsible for just under 90 percent of all emissions. Small businesses would be exempt. Initially, participants would be allowed to either make their own GHG reductions or purchase "offsets" - financial instruments representing a reduction, avoidance, or sequestration of greenhouse gas emissions practiced by other activities, such as agriculture - to cover 100 percent of their required reductions. Offsets would only be available through a program dedicated to ensure that all offset GHG emission reductions are real, measured and verifiable. The fraction of GHG emission reductions permitted via offsets would decline over time.
I'm not sure I support this one. I would have to know what the feasibility of these targets are, and what the penalty would be for companies that are unable to make it under the cap. This strategy could hurt struggling American companies that do not have the resources to cover the upgrading and retrofitting of existing emission control systems for compliance. It could make them less competitive in the global market against companies overseas that are not faced with the same compliance issues.
Promoting Energy Efficiency
John McCain Will Make Greening The Federal Government A Priority Of His Administration. The federal government is the largest electricity consumer on earth and occupies 3.3 billion square feet of space worldwide. It provides an enormous opportunity to lead by example. By applying a higher efficiency standard to new buildings leased or purchased or retrofitting existing buildings, we can save taxpayers substantial money in energy costs, and move the construction market in the direction of green technology.
Amen, lead by example. Practice what you preach.
John McCain Will Move The United States Toward Electricity Grid And Metering Improvements To Save Energy.
Expanding Domestic Oil And Natural Gas Exploration And Production
John McCain Will Commit Our Country To Expanding Domestic Oil Exploration. The current federal moratorium on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf stands in the way of energy exploration and production. John McCain believes it is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and to put our own reserves to use. There is no easier or more direct way to prove to the world that we will no longer be subject to the whims of others than to expand our production capabilities. We have trillions of dollars worth of oil and gas reserves in the U.S. at a time we are exporting hundreds of billions of dollars a year overseas to buy energy. This is the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind. We should keep more of our dollars here in the U.S., lessen our foreign dependency, increase our domestic supplies, and reduce our trade deficit - 41% of which is due to oil imports. John McCain proposes to cooperate with the states and the Department of Defense in the decisions to develop these resources.
John McCain Believes In Promoting And Expanding The Use Of Our Domestic Supplies Of Natural Gas. When people are hurting, and struggling to afford gasoline, food, and other necessities, common sense requires that we draw upon America's own vast reserves of oil and natural gas. Within the United States we have tremendous reserves of natural gas. The Outer Continental Shelf alone contains 77 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas. It is time that we capitalize on these significant resources and build the infrastructure needed to transport this important component of electricity generation and transportation fuel around the country.
The argument for domestic drilling is compelling for more than one reason. Even if we have decided that the day of oil should have come and gone, it is not gone yet. Our entire economy and that of the rest of the world is heavily dependent on the availability of oil. Even if we eliminated all energy uses for oil, we would only reduce world demand by 45%. Why is this? As I mentioned in previous discussion, only 19 gallons of a barrel of oil actually goes into making fuel of any kind. The rest is used for petrochemical applications that make up the raw materials and/or components of nearly everything you can imagine, from the keyboard I am typing on, to the water bottles we drink out of. Even our clothing and food supplies come from petrochemical applications of that remaining 55% of the barrel of oil. Until the world develops technologies that can replace petrochemical-based products, there will always be a growing demand for oil. That is not to say that finding alternative energy sources won't help, but it will not eliminate our need entireley.
Taking Action Now To Break Our Dependency On Foreign Oil By Reforming Our Transportation Sector. The Nation Cannot Reduce Its Dependency On Oil Unless We Change How We Power Our Transportation Sector.
John McCain's Clean Car Challenge. John McCain will issue a Clean Car Challenge to the automakers of America, in the form of a single and substantial tax credit for the consumer based on the reduction of carbon emissions. He will commit a $5,000 tax credit for each and every customer who buys a zero carbon emission car, encouraging automakers to be first on the market with these cars in order to capitalize on the consumer incentives. For other vehicles, a graduated tax credit will apply so that the lower the carbon emissions, the higher the tax credit.
Ok, now in my previous post, I trashed Obama's $7,000.00 tax credit as being an insufficient gesture that would not really provide sufficient cost justification to purchase zero emission vehicles. I must admit that when I read this part of McCain's plan, I started to gear up to nail him to the wall too. Unfortunately, I think he's got a point here. McCain is proposing to offer the tax credits, not to the consumer, but to the Automakers! Now before I start getting hate-mail about being a water-boy for big corporations, hear me out. While the tax credits offer only a fraction of the credit amount as real cash-in-hand benefit to the individual, the cumulative credits offer substantial benefit to the Automakers. Why is this better? It is better because the more financial incentives they have to build, market and sell, the more cost benefit the consumer will see in the form of lower price vehicles, greater innovation, faster time to market, and more product choices in the market. Applied in this manner, a lesser tax credit than proposed in Obama's plan. I agree with this approach, despite it being a “tax cut for big business”.
John McCain Will Propose A $300 Million Prize To Improve Battery Technology For Full Commercial Development Of Plug-In Hybrid And Fully Electric Automobiles. A $300 million prize should be awarded for the development of a battery package that has the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars. That battery should deliver a power source at 30 percent of the current costs. At $300 million, the prize is one dollar for every man, woman and child in this country - and a small price to pay for breaking our dependence on oil.
Again, I agree. This is not a gimmick, as its opponents would have you believe. After all, did we not just recently see private industry fly into space for just such incentives? Now, the CEO of Virgin Airlines has also recently debuted his commercial space craft. Tourism for the rich, sure, but it moves us ever closer to private space exploration. The reality is, these prize offerings work, they cost nothing until success is achieved, place all the risk in the hands of the free market, where it belongs, and stimulate limitless innovative potential.
John McCain Supports Flex-Fuel Vehicles (FFVs) And Believes They Should Play A Greater Role In Our Transportation Sector. In just three years, Brazil went from new cars sales that were about 5 percent FFVs to over 70 percent of new vehicles that were FFVs. American automakers have committed to make 50 percent of their cars FFVs by 2012. John McCain calls on automakers to make a more rapid and complete switch to FFVs.
John McCain Believes Alcohol-Based Fuels Hold Great Promise As Both An Alternative To Gasoline And As A Means of Expanding Consumers' Choices. Some choices such as ethanol are on the market right now. The second generation of alcohol-based fuels like cellulosic ethanol, which won't compete with food crops, are showing great potential.
Today, Isolationist Tariffs And Wasteful Special Interest Subsidies Are Not Moving Us Toward An Energy Solution. We need to level the playing field and eliminate mandates, subsidies, tariffs and price supports that focus exclusively on corn-based ethanol and prevent the development of market-based solutions which would provide us with better options for our fuel needs.
Now here, I have to call McCain to study up on just what Alcohol-based fuels cost us. For starters, it takes huge acreages to grow fuel resources. This means either the clearing of forest land, or the occupation of food plot land for fuel crops. Even if no food-based alcohols are used, this will drive up the price of food, create shortages, and further damage the environment. Second, it takes 1700 gallons of water to make one gallon of ethanol, regardless of whether it is cellulosic or corn-based. Another environmental mistep. In addition, ethanol does not burn as efficiently and creates several times more greenhouse emissions than fossil fuels. Having said that, my opinion is that alcohol should be out of the question as an alternative fuel. We should be using something that is much more plentiful, easier to get, easier on the environment and more efficient. Natural gas is the way to go. Stick to that, electric, and hybrid technologies, and there would be no need for the failed concept of ethanol as a fuel.
John McCain Will Effectively Enforce Existing CAFE Standards.
John McCain has long supported CAFE standards - the mileage requirements that automobile manufacturers' cars must meet. Some carmakers ignore these standards, pay a small financial penalty, and add it to the price of their cars. John McCain believes that the penalties for not following these standards must be effective enough to compel all carmakers to produce fuel-efficient vehicles.
This seems an unnecessary step. The market is already demanding greater fuel efficiency and American Automakers are paying the price for not having enough product options that offer high fuel efficiency. I don't see the need for this step and, in my opinion, it is adversarial. Lets focus on encouraging the free market to do what it does best, meet demand.
Investing In Clean, Alternative Sources Of Energy
John McCain Believes That The U.S. Must Become A Leader In A New International Green Economy. Green jobs and green technology will be vital to our economic future. There is no reason that the U.S. should not be a leader in developing and deploying these new technologies.
John McCain Will Commit $2 Billion Annually To Advancing Clean Coal Technologies. Coal produces the majority of our electricity today. Some believe that marketing viable clean coal technologies could be over 15 years away. John McCain believes that this is too long to wait, and we need to commit significant federal resources to the science, research and development that advance this critical technology. Once commercialized, the U.S. can then export these technologies to countries like China that are committed to using their coal - creating new American jobs and allowing the U.S. to play a greater role in the international green economy.
This is what I am talking about. Encouraging the free market to find innovative ways to solve the energy crisis and the environmental impact of energy production. Enough said.
John McCain Will Put His Administration On Track To Construct 45 New Nuclear Power Plants By 2030 With The Ultimate Goal Of Eventually Constructing 100 New Plants. Nuclear power is a proven, zero-emission source of energy, and it is time we recommit to advancing our use of nuclear power. Currently, nuclear power produces 20% of our power, but the U.S. has not started construction on a new nuclear power plant in over 30 years. China, India and Russia have goals of building a combined total of over 100 new plants and we should be able to do the same. It is also critical that the U.S. be able to build the components for these plants and reactors within our country so that we are not dependent on foreign suppliers with long wait times to move forward with our nuclear plans.
Obama says that he would support nuclear energy if we could find a way to do it safely and cleanly. The problem with that position is, the technology already exists. Our nuclear powerplants are incredibly safe. They are not the most efficient, however. The French have a process by which they are able to recycle over 90% of the “spent” fuel rods from a nuclear power plant, to re-use for further production of nuclear energy. This technology would permit us to build new plants now, that would produce very little nuclear waste, it doesn't get much cleaner or safer!
John McCain Will Establish A Permanent Tax Credit Equal To 10 Percent Of Wages Spent On R&D. This reform will simplify the tax code, reward activity in the U.S., and make us more competitive with other countries. A permanent credit will provide an incentive to innovate and remove uncertainty. At a time when our companies need to be more competitive, we need to provide a permanent incentive to innovate, and remove the uncertainty now hanging over businesses as they make R&D investment decisions.
I hope that this extends to all R&D and not just energy. This is precisely what we need to stimulate innovation in this country and provide incentive to make American companies more competitive in the global market.
John McCain Will Encourage The Market For Alternative, Low Carbon Fuels Such As Wind, Hydro And Solar Power. According to the Department of Energy, wind could provide as much as one-fifth of electricity by 2030. The U.S. solar energy industry continued its double-digit annual growth rate in 2006. To develop these and other sources of renewable energy will require that we rationalize the current patchwork of temporary tax credits that provide commercial feasibility. John McCain believes in an even-handed system of tax credits that will remain in place until the market transforms sufficiently to the point where renewable energy no longer merits the taxpayers' dollars.
These incentives are not enough. The average home owner could install a solar system on their home today that would be capable of powering that home with excess to spare. However, the cost of these systems is so high that even with tax incentives, the return on the investment takes 5 years or more. In states where the electric companies are not required to pay peak prices for the excess electricity, it is nearly impossible to find anyone selling these systems because no one can justify the expense of buying one. If ever there were a subsidy I would support, this is the one. Let's find a way to make the purchase of a solar system so financially attractive that it is almost impossible not to justify installing one!
Protecting Our Environment And Addressing Climate Change: A Sound Energy Strategy Must Include A Solid Environmental Foundation
John McCain Proposes A Cap-And-Trade System That Would Set Limits On Greenhouse Gas Emissions While Encouraging The Development Of Low-Cost Compliance Options. A climate cap-and-trade mechanism would set a limit on greenhouse gas emissions and allow entities to buy and sell rights to emit, similar to the successful acid rain trading program of the early 1990s. The key feature of this mechanism is that it allows the market to decide and encourage the lowest-cost compliance options.
How Does A Cap-And-Trade System Work? A cap-and-trade system harnesses human ingenuity in the pursuit of alternatives to carbon-based fuels. Market participants are allotted total permits equal to the cap on greenhouse gas emissions. If they can invent, improve, or acquire a way to reduce their emissions, they can sell their extra permits for cash. The profit motive will coordinate the efforts of venture capitalists, corporate planners, entrepreneurs, and environmentalists on the common motive of reducing emissions.
Greenhouse Gas Emission Targets And Timetables:
2012: Return Emissions To 2005 Levels (18 Percent Above 1990 Levels)
2020: Return Emissions To 1990 Levels (15 Percent Below 2005 Levels)
2030: 22 Percent Below 1990 Levels (34 Percent Below 2005 Levels)
2050: 60 Percent Below 1990 Levels (66 Percent Below 2005 Levels)
The Cap-And-Trade System Would Allow For The Gradual Reduction Of Emissions. The cap-and-trade system would encompass electric power, transportation fuels, commercial business, and industrial business - sectors responsible for just under 90 percent of all emissions. Small businesses would be exempt. Initially, participants would be allowed to either make their own GHG reductions or purchase "offsets" - financial instruments representing a reduction, avoidance, or sequestration of greenhouse gas emissions practiced by other activities, such as agriculture - to cover 100 percent of their required reductions. Offsets would only be available through a program dedicated to ensure that all offset GHG emission reductions are real, measured and verifiable. The fraction of GHG emission reductions permitted via offsets would decline over time.
I'm not sure I support this one. I would have to know what the feasibility of these targets are, and what the penalty would be for companies that are unable to make it under the cap. This strategy could hurt struggling American companies that do not have the resources to cover the upgrading and retrofitting of existing emission control systems for compliance. It could make them less competitive in the global market against companies overseas that are not faced with the same compliance issues.
Promoting Energy Efficiency
John McCain Will Make Greening The Federal Government A Priority Of His Administration. The federal government is the largest electricity consumer on earth and occupies 3.3 billion square feet of space worldwide. It provides an enormous opportunity to lead by example. By applying a higher efficiency standard to new buildings leased or purchased or retrofitting existing buildings, we can save taxpayers substantial money in energy costs, and move the construction market in the direction of green technology.
Amen, lead by example. Practice what you preach.
John McCain Will Move The United States Toward Electricity Grid And Metering Improvements To Save Energy.
John McCain will work to reduce red tape to allow a serious investment to upgrade our national grid to meet the demands of the 21st century - which will include a capacity to charge the electric cars that will one day fill the roads and highways of America. And to save both money and electrical power for our people and businesses, we will also need to deploy SmartMeter technologies. These new meters give customers a more precise picture of their overall energy consumption, and over time will encourage a more cost-efficient use of power.
This is the first plan I have seen or heard about that places focus on updating our antiquated national grid. Now if only electric cars could be every bit as powerful and have as much range on a charge as a conventional vehicle gets on a tank of gas!
Addressing Speculative Pricing Of Oil
John McCain Believes We Must Understand The Role Speculation Is Playing In Our Soaring Energy Prices. Congress already has investigations underway to examine this kind of wagering in our energy markets, unrelated to any kind of productive commerce, because it can distort the market, drive prices beyond rational limits, and put the investments and pensions of millions of Americans at risk. John McCain believes that where we find abuses, they need to be swiftly punished. To make sure it never happens again, we must reform the laws and regulations governing the oil futures market, so that they are just as clear and effective as the rules applied to stocks, bonds, and other financial instruments.
This is the first plan I have seen or heard about that places focus on updating our antiquated national grid. Now if only electric cars could be every bit as powerful and have as much range on a charge as a conventional vehicle gets on a tank of gas!
Addressing Speculative Pricing Of Oil
John McCain Believes We Must Understand The Role Speculation Is Playing In Our Soaring Energy Prices. Congress already has investigations underway to examine this kind of wagering in our energy markets, unrelated to any kind of productive commerce, because it can distort the market, drive prices beyond rational limits, and put the investments and pensions of millions of Americans at risk. John McCain believes that where we find abuses, they need to be swiftly punished. To make sure it never happens again, we must reform the laws and regulations governing the oil futures market, so that they are just as clear and effective as the rules applied to stocks, bonds, and other financial instruments.
This is better explained than the Obama position, but I still caution that this has a slippery-lope potential. Too much restriction will reach far outside the fuel commodities market and affect the cost of nearly everything.
John McCain Does Not Support A Windfall Profits Tax. A windfall profits tax on the oil companies will ultimately result in increasing our dependence on foreign oil and hinder investment in domestic exploration. Jimmy Carter put a windfall profits tax in to place with little to no useful results.
John McCain holds my view on this subject, as I pointed out in the discussion of Obama's Energy plan. There is much more explanation of his plan on the John McCain website, but I think it is clear to see that this is a much more comprehensive plan, designed to stimulate real change in our energy sources and in our ecological impact. There are a few things in here I disagree with. The first is ETHANOL has to go! The second is that extreme care must be exercised if penalties are going to be exercised against American companies for not reducing energy consumption, offering innovative energy and emission solutions, etc. Most, if not all emphasis should be on rewarding innovation, not in hampering the competitiveness of our own companies in the global marketplace.
Reference
McCain, John (2008) Retrieved August 11, 2008 from http://www.johnmccain.com//Informing/Issues/17671aa4-2fe8-4008-859f-0ef1468e96f4.htm
John McCain Does Not Support A Windfall Profits Tax. A windfall profits tax on the oil companies will ultimately result in increasing our dependence on foreign oil and hinder investment in domestic exploration. Jimmy Carter put a windfall profits tax in to place with little to no useful results.
John McCain holds my view on this subject, as I pointed out in the discussion of Obama's Energy plan. There is much more explanation of his plan on the John McCain website, but I think it is clear to see that this is a much more comprehensive plan, designed to stimulate real change in our energy sources and in our ecological impact. There are a few things in here I disagree with. The first is ETHANOL has to go! The second is that extreme care must be exercised if penalties are going to be exercised against American companies for not reducing energy consumption, offering innovative energy and emission solutions, etc. Most, if not all emphasis should be on rewarding innovation, not in hampering the competitiveness of our own companies in the global marketplace.
Reference
McCain, John (2008) Retrieved August 11, 2008 from http://www.johnmccain.com//Informing/Issues/17671aa4-2fe8-4008-859f-0ef1468e96f4.htm
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Obama Energy Plan
I've been looking at Obama's Energy Plan, direct from his website and I'm left scratching my head. Don't worry, McCain; I'm going to look at yours next!
Here are the issues I see with Obama's energy plan:
· Enact a Windfall Profits Tax to Provide a $1,000 Emergency Energy Rebate to American Families.
Obama will enact a windfall profits tax on excessive oil company profits to give American families an immediate $1,000 emergency energy rebate to help families pay rising bills. This relief would
be a down payment on Obama’s long-term plan to provide middle-class families with at least $1,000 per year in permanent tax relief.
Taxing a specific industry and then giving the money to the public? Really? This equates to a redistribution of wealth. It's a slippery slope. Who decides when an industry has made too much profit, and by what standard? Where does it stop? Companies in the Pharmaceutical industry make huge profit margins; perhaps we should hit them with a windfall tax as well. We could give another $1,000.00 per year to each middle class family. If we look hard enough, perhaps we could find about 30 more industries; say, fast food, Big Box Retail, Home Improvement, the Pulp and Paper industry, etc. That way, every middle class family could receive thousands of dollars every year. If we play our cards right, the middle class could double their incomes; right? I don’t think so. Who do you think ultimately will have to pay for that windfall tax? All of us will; in the increased cost of goods. Who will be most negatively impacted? The lower income and middle class will, of course.
While it is true that oil companies have been making record profits, it is not because – as Obama and others might have you believe – they are gouging the American Public. In fact, the reason our prices are not higher is because of subsidies and tax breaks that oil companies receive now to provide an incentive for selling their oil domestically. As it stands; Oil companies make; on average; an 8% profit margin on each gallon of gas. Your local filling station, by the way, makes about 12-25 cents per gallon. The oil companies are making record profits because of record consumption. They are selling more product than ever, which stands to reason that they would make more money than ever. What proponents of the windfall tax do not tell you is that despite their tax breaks, “Big Oil” still spends about 50% of their revenue on taxes. Hit these companies with a few billion in extra taxes and they will have no choice but to cut development of new supply, and raise their prices. Think gas is expensive now?
· Crack Down on Excessive Energy Speculation.
Barack Obama will close energy industry market loopholes and increase transparency to prevent traders from unfairly lining their pockets, while driving up oil prices at the expense of the American people.
What loop holes is he talking about? This is another potentially slippery slope. If you start to restrict futures trading in one commodity market, you have to do it across the board. In doing so, you will hobble those who use futures to hedge their future costs. Let’s consider what a speculation market is all about. The purpose of futures is to enable buyers of commodities to lock in a price option for the future purchase of a commodity to control the fluctuation of costs. This enables companies like the airlines, restaurants, and even manufacturers to keep their costs from rising sharply and suddenly. Without this capability, these companies would be at the ever-changing whim of the market for these commodities. Imagine going to Burger King today and paying $2.50 for a burger, and then tomorrow, it is $2.85. The following day, perhaps its $3.50! These businesses are able to keep their prices more constant because of the ability to purchase futures options.
· Swap Oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to Cut Prices.
With oil prices doubling in the past year, Barack Obama believes we have an economic emergency that requires a limited, responsible swap of light oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) for heavy crude oil to help bring down prices at the pump.
This isn’t too bad a plan, except that Barrak has said he wants to release about 70 million barrels. This is a useless gimmick. Some analysts point out that this is about 10% of what we would really need to release to make any difference at all. In addition, the swapping of light for heavy crude must make the assumption that we need that much heavy crude and not as much of light oil. If that is the case – maybe it is – why are those barrels of light oil in our reserve in the first place? The next issue is that any oil we release today, we need to buy back later. If that is the case, then what we wind up with is a net zero effect, since you could reasonably expect an opposite effect that releasing the oil did in the first place.
· Get 1 Million Plug-In Hybrid Cars on the Road by 2015.
These vehicles can get up to 150 miles per gallon. Barack Obama believes we should work to ensure these cars are built here in America, instead of factories overseas.
This number is a drop in the bucket, compared to the number of cars on the road today. “Overall, there were an estimated 250,851,833 registered passenger vehicles in the United States according to a 2006 DOT study” (Wikipedia, 2008). This means that over the next 7 years Obama plans for less than one half of one percent of the cars on the road to be hybrid electric cars! If we really want to make a dent, we should be looking for a percentage that would actually have some significant impact on the total US automobile population.
Having said that, current electric technologies are highly limited and any plug-in plan that would have a significant effect at the gas pump would simply transfer that energy demand to the electric grid; which in many states is already over-taxed; particularly in the summer months when air conditioners add additional load. Which production Hybrid gets 150 mpg and is also a plug-in? The answer is none. There are no plug-in hybrids currently in production. The first models are expected to roll off assembly lines in Japan and China later this year and in 2009. Several manufacturers are planning to make these vehicles, but the expected list prices I have seen range from $40,000 to $80,000.00 per vehicle.
By the way, while we are on this topic, how does Obama plan to ensure that these one million cars get on the road? He doesn’t really say. Is this something government can or should do?
· Create a New $7,000 Tax Credit for Purchasing Advanced Vehicles.
For most people, this will have less than a (one-time) $1,000.00 impact on their tax return. Meanwhile, the currently available hybrid cars cost at least $10,000.00 more than comparable conventional vehicles; combined with the additional interest you will pay on the interest, you will pay $15,000.00 more for the vehicle over the life of the loan than you would pay for a comparable conventional vehicle. In about 4 years you will also need to replace the batteries. On the Prius, the cost to do this is about ¼ the original price of the car! Imagine if this Advanced vehicle credit only applies to Plug-in Hybrids. It would have no effect at all!
· A “Use it or Lose It” Approach to Existing Oil and Gas Leases.
Obama will require oil companies to develop the 68 million acres of land (over 40 million of which are offshore) which they have already leased and are not drilling on.
This should not be hard, considering that this law already exists and is enforced! Having said that, the 68 million acres of land is land that leases were placed on for the purpose of exploration. Most of it has been determined not to have any oil at all. If this were not the case, every viable acre would already be drilled. Oil companies make no money at all, but continue to pay leases, if they do not drill for oil they know exists.
· Promote the Responsible Domestic Production of Oil and Natural Gas.
An Obama administration will establish a process for early identification of any infrastructure obstacles/shortages or possible federal permitting process delays to drilling in the Bakken Shale formation, the Barnett shale formation, and the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska.
An excellent idea. Why wait! Obama should insist that Pelosi bring the Democrats back from vacation and get them to work with the Republicans to make this, and other drilling options happen now. Actions speak louder than words. The fact is, Obama has every bit as much opportunity – as a member of the senate majority – to make this happen as he ever would as President. If we recall, President Bush already lifted the executive moratorium. The political road blocks are in the Senate!
References
Obama, Barak (2008) Retrieved August 10, 2008 from
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy_more#relief
Wikipedia (2008) Retrieved August 10, 2008 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States
Here are the issues I see with Obama's energy plan:
· Enact a Windfall Profits Tax to Provide a $1,000 Emergency Energy Rebate to American Families.
Obama will enact a windfall profits tax on excessive oil company profits to give American families an immediate $1,000 emergency energy rebate to help families pay rising bills. This relief would
be a down payment on Obama’s long-term plan to provide middle-class families with at least $1,000 per year in permanent tax relief.
Taxing a specific industry and then giving the money to the public? Really? This equates to a redistribution of wealth. It's a slippery slope. Who decides when an industry has made too much profit, and by what standard? Where does it stop? Companies in the Pharmaceutical industry make huge profit margins; perhaps we should hit them with a windfall tax as well. We could give another $1,000.00 per year to each middle class family. If we look hard enough, perhaps we could find about 30 more industries; say, fast food, Big Box Retail, Home Improvement, the Pulp and Paper industry, etc. That way, every middle class family could receive thousands of dollars every year. If we play our cards right, the middle class could double their incomes; right? I don’t think so. Who do you think ultimately will have to pay for that windfall tax? All of us will; in the increased cost of goods. Who will be most negatively impacted? The lower income and middle class will, of course.
While it is true that oil companies have been making record profits, it is not because – as Obama and others might have you believe – they are gouging the American Public. In fact, the reason our prices are not higher is because of subsidies and tax breaks that oil companies receive now to provide an incentive for selling their oil domestically. As it stands; Oil companies make; on average; an 8% profit margin on each gallon of gas. Your local filling station, by the way, makes about 12-25 cents per gallon. The oil companies are making record profits because of record consumption. They are selling more product than ever, which stands to reason that they would make more money than ever. What proponents of the windfall tax do not tell you is that despite their tax breaks, “Big Oil” still spends about 50% of their revenue on taxes. Hit these companies with a few billion in extra taxes and they will have no choice but to cut development of new supply, and raise their prices. Think gas is expensive now?
· Crack Down on Excessive Energy Speculation.
Barack Obama will close energy industry market loopholes and increase transparency to prevent traders from unfairly lining their pockets, while driving up oil prices at the expense of the American people.
What loop holes is he talking about? This is another potentially slippery slope. If you start to restrict futures trading in one commodity market, you have to do it across the board. In doing so, you will hobble those who use futures to hedge their future costs. Let’s consider what a speculation market is all about. The purpose of futures is to enable buyers of commodities to lock in a price option for the future purchase of a commodity to control the fluctuation of costs. This enables companies like the airlines, restaurants, and even manufacturers to keep their costs from rising sharply and suddenly. Without this capability, these companies would be at the ever-changing whim of the market for these commodities. Imagine going to Burger King today and paying $2.50 for a burger, and then tomorrow, it is $2.85. The following day, perhaps its $3.50! These businesses are able to keep their prices more constant because of the ability to purchase futures options.
· Swap Oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to Cut Prices.
With oil prices doubling in the past year, Barack Obama believes we have an economic emergency that requires a limited, responsible swap of light oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) for heavy crude oil to help bring down prices at the pump.
This isn’t too bad a plan, except that Barrak has said he wants to release about 70 million barrels. This is a useless gimmick. Some analysts point out that this is about 10% of what we would really need to release to make any difference at all. In addition, the swapping of light for heavy crude must make the assumption that we need that much heavy crude and not as much of light oil. If that is the case – maybe it is – why are those barrels of light oil in our reserve in the first place? The next issue is that any oil we release today, we need to buy back later. If that is the case, then what we wind up with is a net zero effect, since you could reasonably expect an opposite effect that releasing the oil did in the first place.
· Get 1 Million Plug-In Hybrid Cars on the Road by 2015.
These vehicles can get up to 150 miles per gallon. Barack Obama believes we should work to ensure these cars are built here in America, instead of factories overseas.
This number is a drop in the bucket, compared to the number of cars on the road today. “Overall, there were an estimated 250,851,833 registered passenger vehicles in the United States according to a 2006 DOT study” (Wikipedia, 2008). This means that over the next 7 years Obama plans for less than one half of one percent of the cars on the road to be hybrid electric cars! If we really want to make a dent, we should be looking for a percentage that would actually have some significant impact on the total US automobile population.
Having said that, current electric technologies are highly limited and any plug-in plan that would have a significant effect at the gas pump would simply transfer that energy demand to the electric grid; which in many states is already over-taxed; particularly in the summer months when air conditioners add additional load. Which production Hybrid gets 150 mpg and is also a plug-in? The answer is none. There are no plug-in hybrids currently in production. The first models are expected to roll off assembly lines in Japan and China later this year and in 2009. Several manufacturers are planning to make these vehicles, but the expected list prices I have seen range from $40,000 to $80,000.00 per vehicle.
By the way, while we are on this topic, how does Obama plan to ensure that these one million cars get on the road? He doesn’t really say. Is this something government can or should do?
· Create a New $7,000 Tax Credit for Purchasing Advanced Vehicles.
For most people, this will have less than a (one-time) $1,000.00 impact on their tax return. Meanwhile, the currently available hybrid cars cost at least $10,000.00 more than comparable conventional vehicles; combined with the additional interest you will pay on the interest, you will pay $15,000.00 more for the vehicle over the life of the loan than you would pay for a comparable conventional vehicle. In about 4 years you will also need to replace the batteries. On the Prius, the cost to do this is about ¼ the original price of the car! Imagine if this Advanced vehicle credit only applies to Plug-in Hybrids. It would have no effect at all!
· A “Use it or Lose It” Approach to Existing Oil and Gas Leases.
Obama will require oil companies to develop the 68 million acres of land (over 40 million of which are offshore) which they have already leased and are not drilling on.
This should not be hard, considering that this law already exists and is enforced! Having said that, the 68 million acres of land is land that leases were placed on for the purpose of exploration. Most of it has been determined not to have any oil at all. If this were not the case, every viable acre would already be drilled. Oil companies make no money at all, but continue to pay leases, if they do not drill for oil they know exists.
· Promote the Responsible Domestic Production of Oil and Natural Gas.
An Obama administration will establish a process for early identification of any infrastructure obstacles/shortages or possible federal permitting process delays to drilling in the Bakken Shale formation, the Barnett shale formation, and the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska.
An excellent idea. Why wait! Obama should insist that Pelosi bring the Democrats back from vacation and get them to work with the Republicans to make this, and other drilling options happen now. Actions speak louder than words. The fact is, Obama has every bit as much opportunity – as a member of the senate majority – to make this happen as he ever would as President. If we recall, President Bush already lifted the executive moratorium. The political road blocks are in the Senate!
References
Obama, Barak (2008) Retrieved August 10, 2008 from
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy_more#relief
Wikipedia (2008) Retrieved August 10, 2008 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States
Friday, August 8, 2008
Critical Analysis of Recent Obama Engergy Speech
By now, everyone has heard or heard about, the comments Obama made this week regarding fuel conservation and his resistance to drilling.
Let's start off by setting an accurate record. Obama's exact statement was "There are things that you can do individually though, to save energy. Making sure your tires are properly inflated - simple thing. But we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling if everybody were just inflating their tires, and, and getting regular tune-ups. You could actually save just as much."
Ok, now the Republicans, and the Conservative talk show hosts, have all ridiculed this opinion. Obama says, "They're actually making fun of something that all the experts say, really will improve gas mileage by as much as 3-4 percent!" Obama is misdirecting the argument. This, for those who are not familiar with critical thinking, is what is called a red herring fallacy. To start with: THEY, are not making fun of a step that ALL the experts say will "definitely save 3-4% more gas" and the experts are not, to my knowledge suggesting that this will reduce our oil consumption by the drastic amount he suggested in his "pump up your tires" speech anyway.
Let's break this apart. The general usage of THEY in an accusatory tone, is conspiratorial. THEY is who? The big, bad THEY, always come up when people want others to think some great conspiracy is against them. Listen to people talk around you, and you will hear this type of statement all the time. THEY want to keep us poor, THEY want to give all our jobs to illegal immigrants, THEY want to make the rich richer and take all the money from the middle class, THEY are hiding a 100 MPG mystery carburetor that has been sitting on the shelf for years because THEY don't want to hurt the BIG oil companies, etc. There is no THEY, tell us WHO THEY are, and prove it.
Now lets get to the next part "... are making fun of a step that ALL the experts say will definitely save 3-4% more gas". ALL the experts say definitely? No room for argument if all of them say so; except that there is never a 100% consensus on anything among experts, and to say the experts all agree that we will definitely save between this percent and that percent? If they all agree definitely, then there should be an agreement on an exact amount too, shouldn't there? In point of fact, I recently heard about a study that showed changing the air filter had no significant effect on gas mileage. This is one step that many experts do say will improve your gas mileage, but apparently not everyone is agreement, even here!
Most experts agree that keeping your tires inflated AND keeping your car properly tuned up will reduce your GAS consumption by between 3 and 4%. This is true, and I agree! Reduce it over what, though? The answer is that it can reduce your fuel consumption by 3-4% over what your car would get if the tires were BADLY under inflated, and the car was severely in need of a tune-up. Having said that, most cars made since about 1996, do not really require a tune-up before they reach 100,000 miles, and even then, may not really need one. At 125,000 miles, I had my Nissan Altima tuned up, and all fluids changed and flushed. The week before, I had 4 new tires put on (and I check my tire pressure three times a week). Fuel savings? NONE! In fact, I actually got worse gas mileage after the tune up, and the car still does no better today (despite four trips to two different dealerships to rectify the problem). The car went from a 29 MPG average down to a consistent 26 MPG average. So what is the change? A nearly 10% increase in fuel consumption! It could stand to be said that the car, which showed no decline in gas mileage was not in need of a tune up, and in fact, getting one when it did not need one, was worse than not getting one if it had needed one!!!!
Now, lets get down to the facts. Accepting the reasonable premise that inflating your tires and getting a tune-up could reduce your fuel consumption by 3-4%, it still cannot reasonably be said that every car out there needs or has yet to take this step. In fact, according to Glenn Beck "It turns out that about two-thirds of vehicles already have properly inflated tires"(glennbeck.com). Beck goes on to say that this would likely save us roughly 800,000 barrels of oil a day. Now, I don't know if Glenn is taking into account that only 19 gallons of a 42 gallon barrel of oil goes to making fuel. The rest goes to petrochemical applications. If he hasn't, the real number is roughly 425,000 barrels of oil a day. Let's take the 800,000 barrels to give Obama a fighting chance. At 800,000 barrels a day, that is 292 million barrels a year!!!! Big scary number, huh? Well, if that sounds scary, lets look at some of the estimates. One estimate places the ANWAR (and this is just one oil field) at 92 billion barrels. Let's say that 92 billion barrels is all the oil we can get. How long would it take us to equal that amount with the savings Barrack says we can get in one simple step? 315 years!!!!! Three centuries!!! And that is assuming that EVERYONE (another red herring argument) does it when it needs to be done!
Now, Barrack has implied that THEY (we discussed THEY earlier) are making fun of something the experts say will definitely give us an OIL consumption reduction equal to all the domestic oil we want to drill for. The reality is that everyone is making fun of the fact that Barrack has taken a step that most experts say CAN (that is; possibly, probably, maybe) reduce an individual's FUEL consumption by 3-4%. A step that logic tells us is nowhere close to reducing our energy consumption to an equivalent of the increased supply we could get by drilling domestically. This is not the same thing. The difference is MILES APART!!! On an individual basis, you can prevent your car from losing fuel economy by maintaining it. That is really a NET ZERO effect. Your car is not going to get any better gas mileage than the day you bought it. In addition, this reduction - if it really were a reduction, would be in gasoline (and diesel) fuel use by vehicles; not a wholesale crude oil reduction. By the time you get back to the barrel of oil - again, assuming the 3-4% improvement in fuel economy - you are looking at less than half that percentage. When you get down to numbers this small comparing quantities this large; it is statistically insignificant. This makes Obama's "Pump up your tires speech" worthy of ridicule in my book!
By the way, I can teach anyone how to safely get a 25% increase in gas mileage without making any changes at all to the car and it costs nothing to do it. Even with that savings, however, we still cannot avoid getting access to our own oil domestic supply immediately. It would take us months to access most of this oil. It would still take us more than 60 years to realize the same gains, assuming I taught EVERYONE to use the fuel saving driving techniques I currently employ and EVERYONE did it ALL THE TIME!
Again, I welcome anyone to comment that wishes to engage in a critical thinking-based discussion; whether in agreement or disagreement with this article. Please be advised; even if I agree with you, I will not allow fallacious arguments. I will either delete your posting or use it to point out the fallacies in your argument (this is not the same as "pointing" out "flaws" in your opinion). I expect the same treatment from anyone who writes. If you find a fallacious argument from me, Point it out!!! I will post your comment and respond.
Please, if you are going to quote someone in your comments, use APA style references in your posting. I'm not grading, so you don't have to be perfect, but I do want some accountability and I expect to be held accountable for mine as well!
References
Beck, Glenn (2008) Retrieved August 8, 2008 from http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/07/beck.energy/index.html
Obama Speech (2008) Retrieved August 8, 2008 from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzZNP4tTfV0
Let's start off by setting an accurate record. Obama's exact statement was "There are things that you can do individually though, to save energy. Making sure your tires are properly inflated - simple thing. But we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling if everybody were just inflating their tires, and, and getting regular tune-ups. You could actually save just as much."
Ok, now the Republicans, and the Conservative talk show hosts, have all ridiculed this opinion. Obama says, "They're actually making fun of something that all the experts say, really will improve gas mileage by as much as 3-4 percent!" Obama is misdirecting the argument. This, for those who are not familiar with critical thinking, is what is called a red herring fallacy. To start with: THEY, are not making fun of a step that ALL the experts say will "definitely save 3-4% more gas" and the experts are not, to my knowledge suggesting that this will reduce our oil consumption by the drastic amount he suggested in his "pump up your tires" speech anyway.
Let's break this apart. The general usage of THEY in an accusatory tone, is conspiratorial. THEY is who? The big, bad THEY, always come up when people want others to think some great conspiracy is against them. Listen to people talk around you, and you will hear this type of statement all the time. THEY want to keep us poor, THEY want to give all our jobs to illegal immigrants, THEY want to make the rich richer and take all the money from the middle class, THEY are hiding a 100 MPG mystery carburetor that has been sitting on the shelf for years because THEY don't want to hurt the BIG oil companies, etc. There is no THEY, tell us WHO THEY are, and prove it.
Now lets get to the next part "... are making fun of a step that ALL the experts say will definitely save 3-4% more gas". ALL the experts say definitely? No room for argument if all of them say so; except that there is never a 100% consensus on anything among experts, and to say the experts all agree that we will definitely save between this percent and that percent? If they all agree definitely, then there should be an agreement on an exact amount too, shouldn't there? In point of fact, I recently heard about a study that showed changing the air filter had no significant effect on gas mileage. This is one step that many experts do say will improve your gas mileage, but apparently not everyone is agreement, even here!
Most experts agree that keeping your tires inflated AND keeping your car properly tuned up will reduce your GAS consumption by between 3 and 4%. This is true, and I agree! Reduce it over what, though? The answer is that it can reduce your fuel consumption by 3-4% over what your car would get if the tires were BADLY under inflated, and the car was severely in need of a tune-up. Having said that, most cars made since about 1996, do not really require a tune-up before they reach 100,000 miles, and even then, may not really need one. At 125,000 miles, I had my Nissan Altima tuned up, and all fluids changed and flushed. The week before, I had 4 new tires put on (and I check my tire pressure three times a week). Fuel savings? NONE! In fact, I actually got worse gas mileage after the tune up, and the car still does no better today (despite four trips to two different dealerships to rectify the problem). The car went from a 29 MPG average down to a consistent 26 MPG average. So what is the change? A nearly 10% increase in fuel consumption! It could stand to be said that the car, which showed no decline in gas mileage was not in need of a tune up, and in fact, getting one when it did not need one, was worse than not getting one if it had needed one!!!!
Now, lets get down to the facts. Accepting the reasonable premise that inflating your tires and getting a tune-up could reduce your fuel consumption by 3-4%, it still cannot reasonably be said that every car out there needs or has yet to take this step. In fact, according to Glenn Beck "It turns out that about two-thirds of vehicles already have properly inflated tires"(glennbeck.com). Beck goes on to say that this would likely save us roughly 800,000 barrels of oil a day. Now, I don't know if Glenn is taking into account that only 19 gallons of a 42 gallon barrel of oil goes to making fuel. The rest goes to petrochemical applications. If he hasn't, the real number is roughly 425,000 barrels of oil a day. Let's take the 800,000 barrels to give Obama a fighting chance. At 800,000 barrels a day, that is 292 million barrels a year!!!! Big scary number, huh? Well, if that sounds scary, lets look at some of the estimates. One estimate places the ANWAR (and this is just one oil field) at 92 billion barrels. Let's say that 92 billion barrels is all the oil we can get. How long would it take us to equal that amount with the savings Barrack says we can get in one simple step? 315 years!!!!! Three centuries!!! And that is assuming that EVERYONE (another red herring argument) does it when it needs to be done!
Now, Barrack has implied that THEY (we discussed THEY earlier) are making fun of something the experts say will definitely give us an OIL consumption reduction equal to all the domestic oil we want to drill for. The reality is that everyone is making fun of the fact that Barrack has taken a step that most experts say CAN (that is; possibly, probably, maybe) reduce an individual's FUEL consumption by 3-4%. A step that logic tells us is nowhere close to reducing our energy consumption to an equivalent of the increased supply we could get by drilling domestically. This is not the same thing. The difference is MILES APART!!! On an individual basis, you can prevent your car from losing fuel economy by maintaining it. That is really a NET ZERO effect. Your car is not going to get any better gas mileage than the day you bought it. In addition, this reduction - if it really were a reduction, would be in gasoline (and diesel) fuel use by vehicles; not a wholesale crude oil reduction. By the time you get back to the barrel of oil - again, assuming the 3-4% improvement in fuel economy - you are looking at less than half that percentage. When you get down to numbers this small comparing quantities this large; it is statistically insignificant. This makes Obama's "Pump up your tires speech" worthy of ridicule in my book!
By the way, I can teach anyone how to safely get a 25% increase in gas mileage without making any changes at all to the car and it costs nothing to do it. Even with that savings, however, we still cannot avoid getting access to our own oil domestic supply immediately. It would take us months to access most of this oil. It would still take us more than 60 years to realize the same gains, assuming I taught EVERYONE to use the fuel saving driving techniques I currently employ and EVERYONE did it ALL THE TIME!
Again, I welcome anyone to comment that wishes to engage in a critical thinking-based discussion; whether in agreement or disagreement with this article. Please be advised; even if I agree with you, I will not allow fallacious arguments. I will either delete your posting or use it to point out the fallacies in your argument (this is not the same as "pointing" out "flaws" in your opinion). I expect the same treatment from anyone who writes. If you find a fallacious argument from me, Point it out!!! I will post your comment and respond.
Please, if you are going to quote someone in your comments, use APA style references in your posting. I'm not grading, so you don't have to be perfect, but I do want some accountability and I expect to be held accountable for mine as well!
References
Beck, Glenn (2008) Retrieved August 8, 2008 from http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/07/beck.energy/index.html
Obama Speech (2008) Retrieved August 8, 2008 from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzZNP4tTfV0
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
