Just watching the debate and wondering why

our candidates can't come out and call for an Apollo style large scale paradigm shift in our consumption of energy? Everybody knows that that is what is needed. We could lead the way, and give the results away to the rest of the world. </optimism>

Or is that too cynical a reading?

I was just thinking about how growing up in the '70's...there used to be "In the News" snippets in between cartoons on Saturday about the need to change to non-fossil energy. It's just so transparent why we don't do anything....society is unwilling to sacrifice.

Just think where we'd be now if Reps hadn't undone the environmental initiatives of the 70s!

On your other point, I think the people are more willing to sacrifice than the corporations are. People can be inspired to be part of a movement for the betterment of our society and planet ~ they see it as patriotic, in the best sense of the word.

I really like the comparison to Apollo rather than to the "Manhattan Project."

In 1982, I went to the World's Fair in Knoxville Tennessee. The theme was "Energy Turns the World." http://web.knoxnews.com/advertising/worldsfair/index.html

There were exhibits from all over the world dealing with alternative sources of energy and the conservation of energy. It all seemed to be "just around the corner." That was a quarter of a century ago.

In many cases, people don't need to make a sacrifice to save energy. They simply need to be taught about alternatives (ex. "demand" water heaters.) http://www.eere.energy.gov/consumer/your_home/water_heating/index.cfm/mytopic=12820

I learned about many of these alternatives for the first time in Knoxville.

What? You were hoping for some bold new leadership? So sorry...

sw

(edited for speeling)

the dem party is the wrong place to look.

Progressive on all issues.

:bounce:

How is doing something large scale a paradigm shift? How is doing something large scale going to decrease our consumption of energy? But, if it's not meant to decrease it, then where is the shifting of said paradigm?

No politician who wants to win has the guts to call for a consumptive paradigm shift. Jimmy Carter tried it and look what happened to him. Although that's not the only reason, or even the primary reason, why he lost. But that mindset enabled Reagan to tag him as basically a real downer.

Since then Americans have enjoyed the party. Somebody tonight threw out the tired old Apollo style program investment tag line. It does needs to start with conservation. It needs to start with higher prices for gasoline. The question tonight was what would you do to make gasoline cheaper? Nobody had the guts to say that gas is too cheap, that it is a limited resource, that we piss it away like cheap beer, and that we're fucking up the atmosphere while doing it.

Say that to just about anybody and they'll look at you like you're f'ing crazy. Americans want clean, cheap energy as long as nothing disrupts their lifestyle. The U.S. once had the opportunity to lead in a better direction but we abdicated our role some decades ago. Now the Chinese and Indians are trying to beat us at our own game of burning gas and coal like there's no tomorrow.

Yes we need(ed) such a program. I just don't believe that it is anymore likely to get underway now than it was at any other time it was called for over the past 30 years.

Every time I hear about the need for an "Apollo" program, I want to throw up.

The fact is that the longer people delay acting on what is already known, the worse things will be. This is not a matter of futurism. It is a matter of action.

We already know what works, but refuse to do it, because we are at the end of the day, a culture of cowards. The answer was discovered more than half a century ago in a massive government project called the Manhattan project. Given that we have been too stupid to apply what was learned there in positive ways, there is zero evidence that another such project will produce useful results.

When JFK said the US would place a man on the moon, most of the technology was already available, it needed development and expansion to get to the moon, but it already existed in the 1950s. The big push for rockets occurred do to the V2 program of WWII. The US took some V2s (and built others) and called them Redstone Rockets. These were expanded for research all through the 1950s (In fact you can call the first Mercury mission, nothing but a V2 with a Second Stage attached). From these early rockets research was made in Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs). The reentry needs of an ICBM was the same as for a human, and given the size of the H-bombs of the time period, almost no difference in the weight (i.e. the Weight of a H-bomb exceeded that of an Astronaut and the Oxygen to keep him alive). The later Mercury Missions were launched from surplus Atlas ICBMs, and the Gemini program used heavy duty Titan ICBMs. TO get the much larger Saturn 1 A and V Rockets just require using the technology for the Atlas and Titan ICBMs on a much grander Scale. This development would have its own problems but no new BASIC research was required (in fact both the US and the Former Soviet Union had sent unmanned probes to the Moon even BEFORE Kennedy's Speech about going to the moon before 1970).

As to the need for "Space Suits" these first started with the Dive Bombers before WWII and expanded when planes started to exceed 20,000 feet (The point when people can NO longer get the oxygen they need from the air around them). As Planes went higher and higher more and more environmental protection was needed (i.e. a FULL SUIT to protect the pilot as opposed to just an Oxygen Masks of the WWII era planes). By the 1960s you had suits that were sealed for use in high attitude Balloons in addition to high attitude planes. At the same time people were going deeper and deeper in the oceans in man suits. These deep diving suits had been around since the late 1800s, sealed with hoses for Oxygen and rigid to retain their shape in high pressures. Combining the technology of these deep diving suits and the pressure suits of the jets pilots was not that hard to come up with the Space suits used by the Astronauts.

As to the Food, the US Army had been working on Food Technology, including Food that minimized waste, weight and size. This was the basis of the Food of the Astronauts.

As you can See the technology of the 1950s is what put us on the Moon, it was available and just needed an massive influx of cash to get these technologies together to put a man on the moon. What was needed was approximately known (The exact amount was unknown, but approximately what was needed was known). Furthermore since you had people marking the Rockets, the Suits and the Food already, the relatively slight switch to get to the moon was within easy reach if enough money was put into the program.

The Post-WWII Marshall Plan was similar, what was needed was known (i.e. food, technology and money) all that was needed is for the US to accept that fact that running a trade surplus with Europe and the rest of the World would just bleed these countries to such an extend that the Soviet Union would look like a Paradise on earth. Even the GOP recognized that problem, so agreed to spend a hugh amount of our trade surplus back into Europe and Japan to show that Capitalism worked. What was needed was known and once provided the Marshall Plan Stopped Soviet Expansion better than any use of force.

How do these two efforts compare with our upcoming Energy criss? First what is the Solution? The answer is reduce oil Usage. How do you do that? The traditional way is to raise the cost of Oil till such point people stop buying. The problem with that solution is people do NOT want to stop buying, for to stop buying means having to abandoned their home so they can live closer to their work (And that MAY not be possible given that in most families BOTH spouses work, often in different areas and getting to and from the two employment and one living area is ONLY possible via the Car). We just can NOT take what is already in production and upgrade it (i.e. Atlas Rocket to Saturn V Rocket) we have to adjust HOW we get to and from work.

My point is to solve the Oil crisis is NOT one of Scale but one of Structure. Going to smaller cars will help to a degree, but the better solution is to get people to live next to their work place. Since even before WWII, people with money (including the Middle Class) have moved from the inner City to suburbs where people of their economic background live. The inner city was left with people who could NOT afford to move out. Thus today, you have Suburban Schools for Middle Class kids, and Inner City Schools for poor children (and the rich often live in they own separate communities). Prior to Suburbanization, while you still had a class system, people had to live close to their work and thus their schools had to be close to the work. Most employers have poor workers, Working Class Workers, Upper Middle Class Managers and the owners of the Business. With the exception of the owners, the Schools near the business had to educate ALL THREE (Now these schools were often segregate the children into different classes but that is a separate issue).

Notice the issues in the Marshall Plan was money, in the Apollo Program, money and upscaling already existing technology. In the oil crisis throwing money at the problem will NOT produce more oil. Marking a larger (or Smaller) version of today's Society, is NOT a simple solution like designing the Saturn V Rocket (yes, the Saturn V was a complex piece of Technology, but it is simple compared to re-engineering our society to use less fuel).

In Simple terms, what is needed will AFFECT every single person on this Plant (and in the US). Everyone will have to give up something they have come to cherish. Lets just look at some:

1. Suburbia, there is NO way you can keep Suburbia suburban without the Car. The population density is to low to justify a Streetcar line, and the yards are to small to feed the family in the homes. It has to give. Given that most urban dwellers vote Democratic and Most Rural Residents vote GOP, it has been the Suburbs where elections are won and lost. You are NOT about to get Suburban votes by saying they are going to have to give up their homes AT A SEVERE LOST.

2. Most Americans can NOT envision getting around other than by Car. To get around any way else will take a change in mindset. Again Rural Dwellers will just have to get use to the idea of getting to town once or twice a month and be self-sufficient in between, a doable change but still an unpleasant one. Inner City have used buses for decades, but even in the Inner Cities (Outside of New York City and some other inner city core) most people get around by Car. Going back to ONLY using Streetcars and/or buses will be a doable but unpleasant change. Finally you have the Suburbs, which are NOT viable. When they no longer have the ability to buy gas, they must move AND LOSE THEIR HOME.

3. On top of the above, food prices will have to go up both to reflect the transfer of some farm acreage to the production of Bio-fuels AND the increase cost of shipping food do to increase cost of oil. With increase food prices, will come decrease in money available to buy other things, thus the consumer economy will die out, do to the combined costs of Oil and Food.

Thus the Solution to the oil Crisis (or to even acknowledge it is a problem and how to address it) leads you down to the above problems, changing society over a very short time period when people oppose the change. No Apollo program will solve the problem. The solution to the problem is NOT a quick (within ten years) solution, but a massive multi-decade change in our society that is best started early BY INCREASING THE COST OF OIL. People will REJECT that the problem is oil is to Cheap, instead demand lowing of the price of oil. Politicians will have to finesse this issue, NOT give into the desire to lower something that can NOT be lowered, but also NOT saying they want to see the price go up. Reality has to be ignored (that oil must go higher) but at the same time avoid committing to what is impossible (Lower oil prices). This dilemma is what the politicians are facing and until the American People accept the fact gasoline will go up and up, Politicians will avoid the issue.

As to Nuclear, Solar, Wind and other non-fossil fuel energy sources, these will provide very little new energy compared to what oil provided today, or will take DECADES to be built. These will be part of the solution, but re-structuring our society to use less energy will do more than even doubling the number of Nuclear plants. Our Society has to be re-structure and such a re-structuring will take years, but with new Nuclear, Solar, Wind Bio-Fuel, and other non-conventional forms of energy this problem will be addressed, but until people start to demand actual change, things will stagnant.

the other 95% of the people
on Earth can't lift a finger to help?

kind of greatness out of my country. Call me a bumpkin I guess.

BTW, lots of other people are "lifting a finger to help". Check out Scandinavia, Germany and Spain for instance. Hell, even India is nipping at your heels when it comes to installing wind farms: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2617.

Your attitude is unworthy of a citizen of the greatest nation to ever grace the globe. Unfortunately, it's also a common attitude: "From those to whom much is given, little should be expected."

Why is it up to the US and Australia to stand alone in not ratifying it, :patriot: while all of the other industrialized nations simply go along with the crowd? Why can't we get a little help? :sarcasm:
http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/status_of_ratification/items/2631.php

To the rest of the world :web:, please forgive us, for we know not what we do.

the Kyoto Protocol, is in force,
and emission limitations take effect on Jan. 01, 2008

Okay, so let's say that an historic building is owned by a couple hundred people. Most of them owners decide to preserve the building.

However, one owner, who owns 25% of the building says, "I'm burning down my fourth, and building a parking lot. You all can decide for yourselves what you want to do with the rest."

I don't know... would you say that individual is blocking the others from saving the building?


Don't like that one? Okay, a couple of hundred people are in a boat which is sinking. Most of the passengers decide to try to patch the boat and bail out the water before it sinks. However, one passenger, with an obscenely large, leaky stateroom which takes up a quarter of the boat says, "You all can do whatever you want in your part of the boat, just stay out of my stateroom. I'm not patching these holes, and if you think I'm going to bail, you're crazy. (I've always dreamed of having my own private swimming pool!)"

What do you think? Is our salty seaman blocking the others' efforts to save themselves?

I liked your analogies though.
:hi:

They can't stand it if anyone seems to be doing the slightest bit less than they are.

Truth is, they don't do very much unless I really get on their cases.

Ah well, in this game of running as fast as we can towards a brick wall with our eyes closed, USA is number one! One way or another, we will learn it's a stupid game.

when it would appear that the EU has strong
popular support

The Scandinavian countries are also taking action. And why should the USA not act, even if it was unilateral? The moral power of leadership is very strong. Do you not think the USA should take a leadership role in this?

Germany is only under its impending Kyoto obligations
because of the closure of Soviet era industry in the early 1990s.

the EU as a whole is about 8% above compliance

I fully expect Kyoto to fall flat on its bureaucratic face. National governments have a nasty history of doing either nothing (e.g. Kyoto) or exactly the wrong thing (e.g. ethanol). The real action (and any remaining hope) rests with the private sector and citizens' groups.

For instance, according to the Wikipedia article on wind power: "At the end of 2006, worldwide capacity of wind-powered generators was 74,223 megawatts; although it currently produces less than 1% of world-wide electricity use, it accounts for approximately 20% of electricity use in Denmark, 9% in Spain, and 7% in Germany."

As a comparison, the United States generates 15 times as much electricity as Spain, yet has virtually identical installed wind capacity. So compared to Spain's 9% penetration of wind, the USA has only 0.6%. That's a much more worrying fact in many ways than any measurement against the ridiculous Kyoto meter-stick.

I hold out little hope for renewable power in any general, global "solutions" sense, but certainly the regulatory agencies in countries like Germany and Spain have made it possible for good alternatives like wind to penetrate deeper into the generation mix than countries like Canada or the USA. America, in contrast, has not only refused to ratify Kyoto, but has placed many hurdles in the development path of wind power and has set itself squarely on the catastrophic path of crop-based ethanol, with all its well-known and still-emerging negative consequences to the environment and food supplies.

where I live, in the heat of Summer,
you couldn't buy a breeze.

just for the record, I am all in favor
of wind where it makes economic sense,
or where people currently have no electricity at all.

how many places on Earth have 25 MPH wind even half the time?

I don't get your point. The USA has plenty of high-wind areas that could contribute significantly to regional generation capacity.

below 15 mph, you get nothing

http://www.usairnet.com/weather/maps/current/texas/wind-speed/

While there are large parts of the USA without much wind resource, there are others that have plenty.

A large majority of Americans could care less about what happens to people in other countries around the world- and gladly support policies that condemn them to poverty and suffering- either overtly or by "looking the other way."

We're the idiots who squandered our post WW II wealth creating an astonishingly wasteful and unsustainable society based on massive petroleum inputs- and we claim that life style to be non-negotiable.

Americans made their bed- and don't expect anyone to help us in the post peak oil world. Indeed, if the the nations of the world are smart, they'll recognize that Americans will try to take what they "need" regardless.

Back in 1973 Richard Nixon called for energy independence:

"President Richard Nixon in November 1973, three weeks after the Arab oil embargo, when he introduced "Project Independence" and pledged that the United States would, within seven years, "meet our own energy needs without depending on any foreign energy source." It was a bold assertion but one that puzzled his own advisers. "I cut the reference to 'independence' three times from the drafts, but it kept being put back," recalled Richard Fairbanks, a drafter of the speech. "Finally, I called over, and was told that it came from the Old Man himself." Nixon knew that energy independence was something that Americans would crave after the 1973 oil shock: He deliberately modeled his Project Independence on John F. Kennedy's Apollo goal of getting a man on the moon within a decade."

That worked out well.

http://www.cera.com/aspx/cda/public1/news/articles/newsArticleDetails.aspx?CID=8560

"Energy independence" is code for "We know we're screwed, we can't figure out how to fix the problem, but we know people expect us to fix it anyway. We're pretty sure it has something to do with brown people, though."

Don't worry, you will achieve energy independence as soon as global oil exports dry up. All you have to do is wait.

"No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die."

Energy conservation is a worthy goal but unfortunately I have found it hard to implement on a personal level.

I would like to drive a smaller fuel efficient vehicle but I work out of my truck so I have to drive a truck.

I live in the south and the weather is hot so we need air conditioning. My wife would refuse to give up her clothes dryer, dish washer, and other appliances. We live in the suburbs and have no desire to move into a high density urban community.

It is difficult to muster the will and conviction to make changes on a personal level. Perhaps if other people did so then I may be more likely to follow. It seems that few of us are really interested in making major changes in our life style.

We can see this at the personal level, and at the national level, and at the geopolitical level. Nobody will do anything about peak fossil, or climate change. Because any credible solution involves voluntarily reducing the standard of living, or asking one's political constituents to agree to all do it together.

I don't think our likes or dislikes about things like driving trucks, or air conditioning, will matter for too many more years. Our standard of living will be reduced for us, by the unfolding of cause and effect. For many people, it will be reduced to the point of being no longer alive.

> Energy conservation is a worthy goal but unfortunately I have found
> it hard to implement on a personal level.

The closer you can get to the goal (of voluntarily slowing down your
consumption), the less pain you will suffer when you hit the wall
(the hard limits that will be imposed involuntarily).

> It is difficult to muster the will and conviction to make changes on
> a personal level.

I think most people will agree with you: it is difficult but start off
by taking small steps in the right direction. No-one is suggesting that
people have to instantly switch from "the good life" (as you put it) to
a Robinson Crusoe existence but every change you make now is one less to
make in the future.

> Perhaps if other people did so then I may be more likely to follow.
> It seems that few of us are really interested in making major changes
> in our life style.

That gets me depressed at times too (and I don't think I'm alone in that
on this forum) but, when you are surrounded by environmentally apathetic
(or negative) people, all I can suggest is to lead by example: you do the
right thing and others will follow. Good luck!

(BTW, welcome to DU! :hi: )