WH: We’re On the Case; Jindal: HELP!

Was the picture taken before or after Obama hit the links?
Obama has spent more time fixing divots than on this oil spill.
Then again, I bet he doesn’t fix his divots.

Barack Obama hates marine life.

Posted by: tierra | May 24, 2010 3:19:43 PM
Barack Obama hates fishermen.

At least Obama doesn’t have his feet up on the desk in this photo.

On May 2, Gov. Jindal requested that federal authorities and BP provide three million feet of absorbent boom, five million feet of hard boom and 30 ‘jack up’ barges. Of that, less than 800,000 feet of hard boom has arrived – less than a fifth of the request. About 140,000 feet of that hard boom is sitting waiting for BP to tell contractors where to take it.
“It is clear we don’t have the resources we need to protect our coast,…”
Gee, I wonder why THE STATE OF LOUISIANA, which gains a great windfall of jobs and revenue from offshore oil drilling, hasn’t bothered to stock up on the basics to protect themselves? Great fiscal conservatism there, Lou.
A hurricane is one thing – you don’t have decades of revenue brought in by the hurricane industry. But this oil industry, and the risks, have been there decades. Why didn’t they levy appropriate charges to factor in the cost of protecting the commons? Talk about anti-capitalist market distortions.

“Gee, I wonder why THE STATE OF LOUISIANA, which gains a great windfall of jobs and revenue from offshore oil drilling, hasn’t bothered to stock up on the basics to protect themselves? Great fiscal conservatism there, Lou. ”
Hey, jhw. Search “Despite plan, not a single fire boom on hand on Gulf Coast at time of oil spill | al.com”
An excerpt:
“If U.S. officials had followed up on a 1994 response plan for a major Gulf oil spill, it is possible that the spill could have been kept under control and far from land.
The problem: The federal government did not have a single fire boom on hand.
The “In-Situ Burn” plan produced by FEDERAL agencies in 1994 calls for responding to a major oil spill in the Gulf with the immediate use of fire booms.”
Questions? Unlike Blanco and Nagin, Jindal is not waiting for rescue from the feds.

ABC sums up their liberal bias toward their beloved Obama by the statement “What more could the administration do?” I clicked on this news article and site hoping they would finally have some meaningful commentary, but I see it is still all pro Obama. Meanwhile, the administration will have it’s “boot on the throat” until they can do no more and die—how much oil will leak out of the neck and throat until everything in the Gulf is covered with oil?

Send in National Guard, Coast Guard, White House staff — when job #1 is done — send BP the bill and take it right off the top of their profits for year 2010.

I’m not sure what’s being done re the spill, but I feel that all are doing what they can. Actually, BP should be spending their $$$ & resources to fix this …. it’s their spill.
Obama is getting criticism by the GOP re the gov’t not working on this, who, if Obama started spending millions of gov’t funds to fix it would then be under fire from the GOP for spending the money to do so. The Dems who are being critical are worried about the environmental damage, which the GOP could care less about.
I just want it to be fixed …. I do not think the gov’t is turning a blind eye to it …..

ABC sums up their liberal bias toward their beloved Obama by the statement “What more could the administration do?”
Mike_In_Florida | May 24, 2010 4:01:08 PM
And why can’t YOU fill in the blank? What more SPECIFICALLY could they do?

Great example of a “free market” it’s and even better example of the fed government’s inablility to regulate and respond to those areas it’s responsible for. Federally regulated waters where only those who get special approval from the federal gov’t are allowed to drill and the federal government assumes the role of inspecting for safety and environmental issues to police a private company. That also means just like any other international border in our country the constitution puts the feds in charge. For a state to require those responsible for the mess and the policing of the areas to clean it up and not destroy their coast is all about the government’s inability to be this involved. Keeping that mess from crossing the border into their state is a federal responsibility. Wow look at how good they are at handling this (they can’t even give LA the permits to try and defend it’s own wetlands- just like in state issues in AZ) and the current government just voted them in charge of healthcare in the same way.

“…if Obama started spending millions of gov’t funds to fix it would then be under fire from the GOP for spending the money to do so.”
Not exactly. Consider:
- BP is on the hook to pay for damage, this is not in dispute
- BP’s primary business competency is in locating and extracting oil. A competency of the U.S. govt. (well, we thought so anyway) is to respond to large scale disasters . A primary mistake that Obama has made (either consciously to score political and/or ideological points or through sheer incompetence) is to defer leadership to BP. BP should be focusing ALL of its attention towards stopping flow of oil at source; the fed. govt. should be focused on containment and clean-up. There is time to bill/blame BP later.
But Obama and his cronies, given they have zero real-world management experience default to finger-pointing and pursuit of political points.

Not exactly. Consider:
- BP is on the hook to pay for damage, this is not in dispute
- BP’s primary business competency is in locating and extracting oil. A competency of the U.S. govt. (well, we thought so anyway) is to respond to large scale disasters .
tjp612 | May 24, 2010 4:51:32 PM
So you think Republicans would have supported the expenditure of a few hundred million dollars just to have on hand a fleet of skimmers, million feet of boom, and other assets Jindal thinks they should have in the closet? Who pays for these things to be bought BEFORE an accident?
And I suppose you think the government should invest a few hundred million to have the equipment on hand to contain a massive chemical release into the Mississippi river, just in case. And a few hundred million invested in the assets to clean up a catestrophic nuclear release from one of the 70′s era plants, again just in case. And a few hundred million on hand to clean up a city aquifer polluted by a corporate accident. And a few hundred million…
Better to spend all that money now and if the accident happens we’ll be paid back, Right?

Not to the degree they’ve been empowered to as well as assumed to through this healthcare bill.
obieone40 | May 24, 2010 4:55:20 PM
Really? Can you give two specific examples of the government’s power to “regulate health care” being expanded?

What more SPECIFICALLY could they do?
Posted by: jhw539 |
Couldn’t be bothered to read the blog post?

It wasn’t that long ago that Gov. Jindal was savaging the federal government for interfering with the way he ran his state. When he took office,why didn’t he invest in some oil booms and skimmers?

“So you think Republicans would have supported the expenditure of a few hundred million dollars…”
“And I suppose you think the government should invest a few hundred million to have the equipment on hand..”
“Better to spend all that money now and if the accident happens we’ll be paid back, Right?”
This one is easy.
1.) The figures you cited are in millions (with an “m”)rather than in billions (which is Obama’s preferred denomination)
2.) This is a better investment than the hundreds of billions given to spendthrift state govts. from the “stimulus” package ($$$ that went to govt. unions, fat govt. pensions, etc.). We’ll never get a return on this pay-out. At least if the govt. had ordered the fire booms called out for in the FEDERAL plan, (a.) a factory in Illinois would have manufactured more product (“shovel ready” jobs?) and (b.) these fire booms would have been on-hand to address this spill.
Makes sense, doesn’t it?

Really? Can you give two specific examples of the government’s power to “regulate health care” being expanded?
________________________________
Wow you really ought to read the hc bill and do your own homework. This blog is about the Oil spill and the response. So one last point to your comments (as misdirecting as they are) and then onto the issue at hand the response to the oil spill.
1)federal mandate on individual citizens to purchase with fines/penalties (first time in US history)
2) fed requirements on what someone must have included in their policy to be considered health insurance (previously a state issue)
3) increased federal taxes on healthcare policies because fed gov’t determines the policy to exceed a certain monetary value
a bonus 4) feds now sole source of student loans for college/university

Uh, and little “Bobby” didn’t want government help before while he joined in the Palin’s chorus line “Drill Baby Drill”. They are soooooo funny and hypocritical. And where’s the freak is John McCain. Oh, I forgot, cat’s got his tongue…Now.

Bill Clinton perjured himself before a grand jury.He admitted it in his memoirs.For that he should have been impeached.Whether that offense merited removal from office is another matter;that was decided at his trial.Either you have respect for the law or you don’t;one would hope that principle was active at the level of the Presidency.Now what statute deals with the offer of a political position to interfere with an election process?Is that law to be ignored also? Press? Press? PRESS?

Did you also note the LA Gov’s request for permits and equipment needed that has fallen on deaf ears.
obieone40 | May 24, 2010 5:24:17 PM
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT HAVE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF BOOMS. Every skimmer is already out there, along with every foot of boom they can scrounge. Jindal may as well be requesting unicorns. And he knows it – this is a guy who has been mentioned as a 2012 candidate.

Huh?
BTW –Given you are such a huge cheerleader for “green jobs”, I read an article from Chris Horner where he points out an article from a Spanish newspaper (“La Gaceta”) with the following title:
“España admite que la economía verde que vendió a Obama es una ruina”
(“Spain admits that the “green economy” it sold to Obama is a bust”)
(Subtitle: Spanish government leaks a report acknowledging the grave economic consequences of betting on renewable energy)
The first few lines:
The president of the United States, Barack Obama, does not appear to have chosen well in basing his “green economy” on Spain’s. After the government of Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero demonized a study by various experts on the economic downsides of renewable energies, it just leaked an internal document from the Spanish cabinet which is even more negative.
Among the findings (paraphrased from the article):
• Green energy is 120 percent more expensive, simply due to the extra costs of solar and wind, and the evolution of the market is not going to bring down those costs any time soon.
• The clean energy sector is slated to receive 126 billion euros in the next 25 years, but no one knows where the money is going to come from. In 2009, the subsidies were worth 5 billion euros.
• Photovoltaic solar power accounts for 53 percent of the extra cost of renewables, whereas it produces only 11 percent of Spain’s renewable energy.
• Each “green job” comes at the expense of 2.2 traditional jobs.
—————————-
As with everything else Obama, ideology trumps reality.

jhw,how do you know that? How do you know what resources the federal government has in this regard?Why won’t they agree to the Louisiana dredging plans? They certainly do have more dredging equipment,that is a fact.The fact that we are one month out from this and that equipment is still not in the gulf is the responsibility of the Federal government.And no,a health care seminar with Republicans is not a Press Conference,nor a substitute for one.When will Obama have a PRESS CONFERENCE? It is obvious that he is afraid of questions on topics like this.

Posted by: B.Bear | May 24, 2010 5:03:56 PM
He wants to build earthen berms and the Corps of Engineers wants to finish an environmental impact study before they allow him to do it.
Those things work.
Obama is voting present.

“…the stimulus included a great deal of such ‘just in case’ spending”
You are absolutely on the mark here, jhw. Obama and cronies set up “stimulus” with an opaque, non-specific slush fund to be spent in 2010 and beyond “just in case” they needed to buy some votes!

Posted by: obieone40 | May 24, 2010 5:38:38 PM
Well done. Very well done.

“Green energy is 120 percent more expensive”
Which is more naive do you think? -believing green energy will eventually pay for itself someday or believing the price of oil will stay the same or steadily decline over time?

“Which is more naive do you think? -believing green energy will eventually pay for itself someday or believing the price of oil will stay the same or steadily decline over time?”
With the exception of bio-fuels, green energy does not compete with directly with oil. Your argument would be more relevant if you were comparing vs. coal or nuclear (against which solar and wind have difficulty in competing).
To paraphrase Harrison Ford, when green hypocrites/frauds such as The Goracle reduce their carbon footprint to a level below mine, then I’ll consider taking their advice and reducing mine.

What more could the govt. do?
They could gave given the same sense of urgency to the Gulf situation, that they gave Haiti. Search the world if need be, to find, or manufacture the booms. What good is putting together a panel to study it?
Agree or disagree, this is going to injure obama badly in Nov.
No body is going to forgive him, by comparison to bush. He is in charge.
If this is an example of his handling a national disaster, what is going to do
when we have another one? Call in Van Jones?

“What could Bin Laden ever do to us?”
Apparently, nothing. Clinton had ten chances to kill
Bin Laden and once opportunity to take him from the
Sudanese in 1995. Clinton declined it all.
Posted by: drjohn*******************LOL
Clinton was declined access by the Saudis, you
know the group the bush literally crawled begging
on his knees, when gas was $4/ gal.

And he knows it – this is a guy who has been mentioned as a 2012 candidate. jhw539 |
Wasn’t it a while ago that Jindal was complaining
that our government was too big! Surprise he
can still talk with his foot in the mouth disease.

“Oh but it will, it’s only a matter of time. The first practical all electric cars are coming out which run right off the grid.”
At what cost? At what range? Levels of performance?
“When they say green energy is 120% more expensive it’s certainly not compared to nuclear”
Over what time period and at what scale? At what level of performance? What happens when sun is not shining and wind is not blowing?
“What is your argument anyway? -pay out the nose for oil till it all runs out and then what?”
It costs less than “green energy”! As supply decreases relative to demand required, green energy will become more competitive. Until then, why would we overpay for energy? To follow Spain’s example?
“Green energy can only come down in price, fossil fuels will only go up.”
Not necessarily, my friend. The historical price of a barrel of oil from 1946-2010 is ~35.50 (inflation adjusted). From 1974-1985 price was above average and did not exceed historical average until 2004 when it reached $43.17/bbl. Supply and demand fluctuate, as does pricing. The Green Ideologues, however, are interested in pushing their agenda and have a vested interested in keeping oil prices as high as possible (which is why – even the the U.S. leads the world in drilling technology and our environment standards are higher than any other major oil producing nations – they fight tooth and nail against on-shore and off-shore drilling). Lefties: Ideology first, country and common sense second.

Posted by: spacerook1 | May 24, 2010 7:21:38 PM
Invested in what? Bio-fuels which badly distorted the price of corn and other foodstuffs? Solar? Cannot provide reliable baseload power. Wind? Same problem.
BTW – Any thoughts (on a large scale) on how green energy can fly planes, power ships, and transport tons of materials over long distances?

“they fight tooth and nail against on-shore and off-shore drilling”
Current events should plainly show why.

“The historical price of a barrel of oil from 1946-2010 is ~35.50 (inflation adjusted). From 1974-1985 price was above average and did not exceed historical average until 2004 when it reached $43.17/bbl”
Jhw must be away right now or I’m sure he would be happy to explain to you, and I agree with him, that the cost of being entangled in Middle Eastern affairs because of our addiction to oil far exceeds the cost of the barrels of oil themselves.

“Because if we don’t invest in the technology green energy will never become competitive”
We’re the same country who developed a nuclear bomb from scratch in 6 years in the 1940s… You don’t have much faith in our technological capabilities, do you?
There’s a reason why “green energy” isn’t widely proliferated: it is uncompetitive/non-cost effective and lackse the reliability and/or energy density required to meet our energy needs.

“Drill here, drill now. More jobs, more revenue for the federal govt. (you libs like that, right?), less dependency on foreign oil”
There isn’t enough oil here to significantly effect our dependence on foreign oil. It’s clutching at straws.

“Let’s ban…”
Let’s make BP pay every last dime in clean-up and damages and let the market decide if deep-drilling in the Gulf is worth it. If not let’s subsidize green energy instead.

“Jhw must be away right now or I’m sure he would be happy to explain to you, and I agree with him, that the cost of being entangled in Middle Eastern affairs because of our addiction to oil far exceeds the cost of the barrels of oil themselves.”
Apparently not…or you would be a supporter of extraction of domestic oil.
Oil is not going away for decades to come (even with the most aggressive of “green energy” scenarios). If you truly were interested in weaning the U.S. off foreign oil, you would support domestic drilling. But you don’t. Which indicates you support an agenda that has little/nothing to do with “the cost of being entangled in Middle Eastern affairs”.
Nor does it have to do with the environment – If this were the case, you would insist on (a.) on-land drilling, (b.) near-shore drilling, and, most directly (c.) drilling here in the U.S. where our environment requirements are much more stringent than the vast majority of oil producing nations.
Case closed.

Posted by: tjp612 | May 24, 2010 8:16:06 PM
Alternative sources are not the only solution. Could the citizens actually be convinced to reduce the amount they snort down? Oh, I forgot its’ every American citizen’s divine right to consume as much of everything and anything that they want. The planet be damned. Burp . . .

“Oh, I forgot its’ every American citizen’s divine right to consume as much of everything and anything that they want. The planet be damned.”
As stated before, when the Green Hypocrites cut their carbon footprint to the size of mine they then have the moral high ground to lecture me. Why don’t you ask Barack, Michelle, Jumpin’ Joe Biden, Pelosi, The Goracle, to practice what they preach… Obama can start by giving Air Force One a rest instead of the perpetual campaign he has conducted since January 2009.

“Nor does it have to do with the environment – If this were the case, you would insist on (a.) on-land drilling, (b.) near-shore drilling”
Yeah right, if I really cared about the environment I would insist on near-shore drilling; I’ll let others decide if this makes any sense.

“Obama uses Air Force One almost exclusively for government business.”
And I’m going home to feed my unicorn Willy Wonka Lollipops.
- Campaign stops in NJ and MA in Fall 2009?
- “Tonight Show” appearance with Jay Leno?
- Campaign stop for Barbara Boxer?
- Fundraisers in MA, FL, CA, etc.?
- Trip to Copenhagen to stump for Olympics?
And, while not Air Force One, how about Barack’s and Michelle’s “Date Night” in NYC?
Mmmmm, mmmm, mmmm….Barack Hussein Obama!

Jindal is da bomb. He really was so well informed and effective today and then the idiots from Washington did all of their petty blaming and fingerpointing. JN called the gulf an “ocean”…what a dope. Get out of Jindals way, he’s the man for the job. friggin democrats can do anything without politicizing.

“Because you refuse to consider anything outside the short-term or that we can possibly significantly reduce our demand for oil.”
Actually I don’t. I am a realist, an engineer by training, and also used to work in the power generation industry (large scale power generation)). Based on you comments, my guess is you think we can move towards electric vehicles to handle our transportation needs. A few questions for you:
- Where does the power come from? The move away from oil you suggest would require hundreds of KW of power.
- How would transportation of cargo and people over long distances be accomplished?
- Would lithium batteries be used to power vehicles? If so, where would we get lithium?
- How will the poor among us meet their transportation needs? They won’t be able to afford new vehicles…And I know you Liberals are all about helping out the less fortunate among us (as opposed to us greedy conservatives).
Look forward to your response. Have at it, Champ!

“Bush used Airforce One for a personal trip to his ranch on average once EVERY five weeks, MONTH after MONTH, YEAR after YEAR for ALL eight years of his presidency.”
You make it too easy, tierra. Disregarding that I highly doubt you can provide proof of this statistic, I would guess, conservatively that Obama on average has used Air Force One on average once every two weeks. What “official” business has he conducted? Collecting Nobel Prize in Europe? Selling healthcare in Iowa? Promoting stimulus package in Ohio? Demonizing Wall Street in NYC? What yoiu call “official business” has every appearance of just another stop in the perpetual campaign. Furthermore, Bush did lecture the American public about need to reduce energy usage while he hypocritically did the exact opposite. How is Obama going to lower the level of the oceans if he keeps flying around everywhere?
BTW – I suppose you will also defend Nancy Pelosi’s almost weekly trips home on govt. chartered jets (while running up food and booze tabs at taxpayer expense)?

“Why should I trust them to drill safely at any depth? We can choose not to drill in the Gulf at all, just like we could have chosen not to drive millions of gas guzzling SUVs for the past ten years.”
There is a HUGE difference between shallow and deep drilling. I would have thought even a non-technical mind could appreciate the differences, even at a high-level.
So you wish to regulate what people drive: SUVs ‘bad’ because they burn more gas. What about Obama’s fleet of SUVs and limos – Shouldn’t he trade them in for something more fuel efficient?
What about people who live in big homes? Afterall, if they didn’t live in such big homes, we could mine less coal. Ownership of second homes should be banned as well. As should keeping businesses and office open after dark. Everyone should live in government housing that meets government specifications (hmm…perhaps we can dig up building specs from former Soviet bloc cities…that oughta do the trick)…
Can you see how your logic has crumbled? Or do you want me to provide additional analogies?

“my guess is you think we can move towards electric vehicles to handle our transportation needs”
We most certainly can. Most people don’t drive more than 20-30 miles a day and they can recharge their electric car at night when there is less demand on the grid.

“already very efficient, from trains to loaded semis”
And what fuel do both of these means of transportation use?
“Rail is likewise simple, unless you think America is too stupid to electrify hundreds of miles of rail and hook it up to nuclear plants”
Well, it’s not that simple. To cover freight lines, over 100,000 miles of track would have to be serviced. All locomotives would need to be retrofitted. Not an impossible task.
I appreciate that you recognize that nuclear is the long-term solution (solar, wind, etc. are at best complimentary as they cannot offer required scale).

“We most certainly can. Most people don’t drive more than 20-30 miles a day and they can recharge their electric car at night when there is less demand on the grid.”
You didn’t answer my questions. You either (a.) don’t know the answers, or (b.) know the answers and realize they do not support your arguments.

“Can you see how your logic has crumbled? Or do you want me to provide additional analogies?”
To the contrary I have not yet heard any good argument why we shouldn’t be investing in green technology. Not doing so is only putting off the inevitable.

“I didn’t say regulate, I said choose. Imagine that: people choosing not to waste energy extravagantly.”
My point exactly! People could CHOOSE not to live in big homes or buy second homes, or turn on the lights after dark. We are a country that was founded on the belief in individual liberty and individual choice (within the realm of the law). The green zealots wish to force their agenda on everyone else and dictate options (effectively removing choices). If I want to buy a pick-up truck with a V-12 engine that gets 8 mpg, is this not my right as a tax paying citizen (one, who by the way, is increasing govt. coffers through payment of gas taxes)?

You didn’t answer my questions. You either (a.) don’t know the answers, or (b.) know the answers and realize they do not support your arguments.
tjp612 | May 24, 2010 9:22:02 PM
If you cared about real answers, you would have reviewed real literature on the subject. Or better yet – REALITY. Notice what happened to US fuel usage when the price of fuel went up? And what is continuing to happen (it takes decades to turn over the transportation fleet)?
And don’t even get me started on efficiency opportunities in industry. That’s where I make my bread and butter. As Amory Lovins puts it, we don’t have to go for the low hanging fruit yet, there’s plenty lying on the ground around our ankles.

“If I want to buy a pick-up truck with a V-12 engine that gets 8 mpg, is this not my right as a tax paying citizen”
We can choose not to drill in the Gulf, and if you want to drive a huge truck you can pay extra for the gas to do it. We are under no obligation to destroy the environment in the Gulf so you can afford to drive a big truck.

“When you cite costs you frame it short-term, when you inquire about solutions you’re suggesting long-term.”
But shouldn’t costs be considered during selection of long-term strategies?
Note not all of my questions were directly cost related…review them again…

“I support a $1 or 2 tax on gas. Then let anyone who wants a 9 mpg V-12 go for it.”
I don’t have a problem with it either, particularly if all taxes collected went to service national debt (which is a larger, long-term threat to our national security…not to mention financial security: the annual interest we pay for servicing debt will soon eclipse the entire defense you rail against).
But what of the poor? Isn’t this a bit selfish on your part? A tax such as this is extremely regressive. I hope it is not just conservatives such as myself who are looking out for their interests…
They’ll be paying the true cost of the fuel, rather than sloughing it off on my income taxes, so I’ll be good with it.

“We are under no obligation to destroy the environment in the Gulf so you can afford to drive a big truck.”
But I thought you were against our “addiction” to foreign oil? Which is it? Can’t have it both ways…

“But I thought you were against our “addiction” to foreign oil? Which is it? Can’t have it both ways…”
You’re claiming that if we don’t use as much foreign oil we need to replace it by drilling here. We’re saying we should use less oil through conservation and alternative energy sources. So in that sense yes, I can have it both ways.

“There was no ‘admission’ by Spain of any kind – there was one negative study (Calzada) published that has been quoted widely by the regressive right wing – and debunked by many, many others.”
From “La Gaceta”:
“España admite que la economía verde que vendió a Obama es una ruina
El Gobierno español filtra un informe que reconoce las nefastas consecuencias económicas de la apuesta por las energías renovables”
(In case you don’t know how to put into Google Translate it reads:
“Spain admits that the “green economy” it sold to Obama is a bust”
“Spanish government leaks a report acknowledging the grave economic consequences of betting on renewable energy”)
Appeared in “La Gaceta de los Negocios” 5/21/2010 (The Business Gazette – Spain)

“We’re saying we should use less oil through conservation and alternative energy sources.”
I don’t have a problem with that – If it is my choice to do so (rather than govt. mandates which remove choice). But now that we agree oil is a necessary evil, from where would you prefer to procure: from our own resources where we also grow jobs (primary and secondary), tax revenues to government, and “local” point-of-control or would you rather purchase from a theocratic thug who then uses your money to fund extremist madrassas who cultivate future suicide bombers? (Take your time, it’s a difficult choice)

“Chu has no experience or expertise in off-shore drilling or petroleum recovery.”
Indeed…If I recall correctly, he is a physicist. Smart guy, now doubt, but probably would not appear on a “Top 100″ list of people most qualified to provide meaningful input.
But what else does Obama know? Back in the day, it seemed the profs in the teacher’s lounge seemed to have all the answers, so it would make sense Obama would send him.

#2.adding$1 or $2 per gallon of gas will penalize those who can least afford it. What do you tell the trucker whose margin is already tight that he will have to absorb thousands in additional fuel costs?
Nephron | May 24, 2010 10:29:59 PM
Adding $1 or $2 to the price of gas HAS ALREADY HAPPENED. Where have you been the last 8 years? It’s won’t be fair to ‘those who can least afford it’ when the price of gas doubles again when demand starts outrunning supply again.
As for the trucker, raise his costs and pass it along. Yeah, that’s how the market works – the true cost gets passed through and people decide if they can figure out how to optimize their usage. Why should the cost of gas be subsidized and distorted by writing a blank check on the US debt and general fund for babysitting the entire Middle East? We would not be trillions of dollars deep in the Middle East if it weren’t for our reliance on oil. Period.
Let the free market work. Require oil consumption to pay for its TRUE cost; quit subsidizing it from income (wealth generation) taxes.

Let’s focus on one of them: Assuming lithium batteries will be primary battery types for electric vehicles, where are large deposits of lithium located and will we face any problems in procuring adequate supplies?
tjp612 | May 24, 2010 10:32:54 PM
That’s an awfully big assumption. A mix of chemistries is far more likely, with some replaceable pack chemistries excellent options once the end of cheap oil forces a mass migration (I’m sure better will come up, but zinc air is not bad). But the big thing is urban structure. The ex-burbs will become the slums, poorly served by crowded buses, as economic reality makes living 30 miles from job centers undesirable. Or a leap frog will occur eliminating commutes (REAL telepresence would do this – as in a 8′x8′ high def video wall that transmits in real time the whole work day, so your boss can wander by and look over your shoulder just like in the office).
Get the true prices into the market and let the market do its thing.

“right now most easily obtained lithium concentrations are in South America so long-term there may be a limited supply, but there is plenty to get us started”
You obviously have not followed thru on the homework I assigned you regarding research of Evo Morales and his thoughts about how Bolivia’s lithium should be used (Bolivia has 1/2 of world’s supply of lithium suitable for electric car batteries).
“Instead of spending billions of dollars searching for more oil under the oceans we should be investing in research into battery technology.”
These research $$$ are paid by the oil companies themselves because there is a higher return to be gained in investing in oil than there is in battery research technology.
Sorry, we’re just not there yet. Interesting you haven’t mentioned natural gas as part of the solution. Or (I may be wrong) nuclear.

“our still on the “oil is subsidized” kick”
Reuters: “The Obama administration on Monday asked Congress for a second time to end some $36.5 billion in subsidies for oil and gas companies, saying it would help fight global warming.”

“Reuters: “The Obama administration on Monday asked Congress for a second time to end some $36.5 billion in subsidies for oil and gas companies, saying it would help fight global warming.”
It is my recollection that the subsidies (in the form of tax breaks, not checks cut by the govt.) that oil and gas companies receive was included as legislation passed to assist U.S. manufacturers compete against imports (and undoubtedly save union jobs).
On the other hand, it is not uncommon for green energy to receive not only tax breaks but also funding from the govt.
Personally, I think all subsidies (in all forms, including farming, mfg., energy production) should be eliminated or significantly scaled back due to the market distortions that are caused. Same with tax breaks for taxpayers. Our tax code needs to be simplified in a big way.

I read Spanish and verified the article on-line at the source.
Posted by: tjp612 | May 25, 2010 1:01:04 AM
_____________________________________
Sorry, I don’t believe documents ‘verified’ by a single source. When the document is verified as authentic by more than one source, and its exact content is quoted verbatim – I’ll believe it. And I don’t mean information repeated ad infinitum on internet blogs.

No,but you will quote a group of Manitoba tree-huggers(Pembina Institute) as a scientific authority.
______________________________________
What incorrect information was quoted?

“When the document is verified as authentic by more than one source, and its exact content is quoted verbatim – I’ll believe it. And I don’t mean information repeated ad infinitum on internet blogs.” – tierra
Whew!
That’s a relief!
I thought I was going to have to start believing all of those things you keep posting about Bush ad infinitum.
What’s on the Decades Old Newscast Today tierra?

“Sorry, I don’t believe documents ‘verified’ by a single source. When the document is verified as authentic by more than one source, and its exact content is quoted verbatim – I’ll believe it. And I don’t mean information repeated ad infinitum on internet blogs.”
Did you have your fingers in your ears and are you stomping your feet as you typed your response? I verified at La Gaceta’s website. The author is Cristina Blas, published 5/21/2010 in the “Internacional” section.
Interesting you are quick to label the “right wing” as “liars” and “delusional” yet when you are confronted with FACTS you choose to ignore them because they do not support your narrative.
(Note: this article was not easy to find, but it’s buried in La Gaceta’s archive. It’s yet another example of how the MSM – U.S. and European – are in the bag for the Obama and his “progressive” agenda…otherwise, this article would have received more attention and scrutiny…instead it is swept under the rug)

“No tj, I’m not going to get inveigled into doing “homework” or engaging in a Q&A format for debate.”
My mistake – Learning is hard.

“Hilarious, you see a giant conspiracy of all American and European media – where a sensible person would see one unsubstantiated article.”
Unsubstantiated? Well, perhaps “unsubstantiated” by official OFA talking points…which is all you believe anyway.