Rebuttal

His wind plan is fine, and natural gas for buses and trucks is a great idea, but he needs to do one thing before he convinces me: Introduce a plan that reduces our consumption, not just passes it on to another method of production.

First off, what kind of plan that puts a cap on energy consumption do you think would be publicly accepted in today’s society?! That issue has to be changed gradually and must take place in the minds of the American individual. It is a mentality shift. The Europeans are well ahead of us in the sense that they understand that consumption must come at a high cost. We have been benefitting from low cost and an absence of a sense of responsibility on a global level. Considering the length of time that this would take, together with the stubbornness of the American government (or any government for that matter) when it comes to passing any legislation, as well as the looming environmental concerns that surround this issue, I don’t see any problem with taking these immediate steps towards ‘passing it on to another method of production.’ This is not to take away from your point that it is essentially a consumption/demand problem. However, if we make a push towards the use of these alternative energy sources, including wind, solar, etc, the immediate benefits include not only a reduced dependency on oil (both foreign and domestic) and a significant spending decrease once the new infrastructure is in place, but it would also allow the American people to shift its focus to efforts of clean coal and reducing our overall use of costly, inefficient, and environmentally harmful technologies over the next decade. Think about it – in order to solve this problem, we can’t wait to come up with the world’s most brilliant, innovative idea that everybody likes (getting the people and government’s approval is of major importance) that decreases consumption/demand and maximizes environmental safety. In order to steadily reduce the problem and ride the wave of increased environmental concern, we need to shift our technologies away from costly (both in a monetary sense, and in an environmental sense) energy sources, towards those that help reduce the immediacy of environmental issues and allow the problem to take on a more manageable frame. You can’t just pass a law to ban smoking in an effort to make people quit – you have to first improve awareness and educate the people about its hazards, provide them with alternatives and with effective ways to make them quit or deter them from it, and slowly make it more costly for them to continue to smoke. A bad analogy for this discussion – but hopefully you get my point.


It really isn't the government's job to administer energy, what could they really do? Mandate that alternative energy be used no matter the cost? That's arguably just as bad as doing nothing at all.

My first thought was, well what is the governments role really? What about the DOE – don’t they play a role in guiding our nation’s energy consumption and give themselves the responsibility of providing leadership on energy issues at all levels. But why don’t we look at what they have to say about it…
(taken straight from the DOE’s website)
“The Department of Energy's overarching mission is to advance the national, economic, and energy security of the United States; to promote scientific and technological innovation in support of that mission; and to ensure the environmental cleanup of the national nuclear weapons complex. The Department's strategic goals to achieve the mission are designed to deliver results along five strategic themes:
-Energy Security: Promoting America’s energy security through reliable, clean, and affordable energy
-Nuclear Security: Ensuring America’s nuclear security (*I’ve heard that this has been their chief concern over the past few decades - why that is so is debatable…*)
-Scientific Discovery and Innovation: Strengthening U.S. scientific discovery, economic competitiveness, and improving quality of life through innovations in science and technology
-Environmental Responsibility: Protecting the environment by providing a responsible resolution to the environmental legacy of nuclear weapons production
-Management Excellence: Enabling the mission through sound management”

Seems to me that the government, having the people’s best interest at heart – as it should – could work to provide more incentives for the use of clean & alternative fuel sources, and make it more difficult for the companies/individuals who dominate the energy market to maintain their influence. Shouldn’t we want to have viable (and essentially better) technologies be able to get to the consumer faster? I want to elaborate on this, and I could talk about the fluctuation in gas prices, but I don’t have time right now…

The government has played it's role as well as can be expected…

Really??

…and it's not Bush's fault that gas prices are finally rising to the point they should have been at years ago.

I was not implying that Bush is to blame - at least in particular. I was merely making a case for the idea that the government in general has not really been holding long-term sustainability as a priority for several decades now (note: democrats and republicans alike!). What I was implying was: “has the government really been that out of touch” (does the lack of enthusiasm for eco-friendly and more efficient energy sources in the past half-century show that they have really just been consistently overlooked by the ‘most powerful and influential nation in the world’), or have they, alternatively, “been stalling progress for their (or someones) benefit?” (have they really been influenced by those who have so much invested in the oil-based infrastructure that they would feign ignorance or claim that there is not enough money, – since when has a government not been willing to spend money generously? – interest, or scientific research – biggest bullshit excuse in the politics – to support their legitimacy in order to make an easy buck and live high off the hog until the American public finally realizes that something is not right in the world???)


Had gas prices been at real market rates without subsidies since the last oil crisis, there would be a much more viable market for alternatives. This considered, any government that allowed gas prices to rise this high would be crucified for maiming the economy. Any rise in gas prices now has millions of people in a fit, when in reality, it's helpful to the economy in the long run because we're just paying the difference in taxes anyway, and with more expensive gas, taxes would decrease and allow more personal spending, making it more of a user charge (you use more, you pay more) than a broad tax.

I agree completely – now, the question is, if the Bush administration understand this idea and is willing to take a hit in the approval rating because they are seemingly ‘maiming the economy,’ then why stall progress and neglect to provide a pathway for the integration of new technologies?? I go back to my previous point here – it seems, to me at least, that they have to be in bed with the current energy big-shots and are working on their behalf, rather than in the best interest of the American public and for long-term sustainability.

I'm tired of the government being the scapegoat…It's not the government's problem to fix, it's ours.

The government is always the people’s scapegoat, whether it’s primarily republican or democrat-based. These people are in the positions they are in to act as representatives of the people, right? People not seeing any positive results = people voicing anger against elected leadership. But if anyone can influence people to do something it’s a leader. So don’t you think that it’s time for elected officials to own up to that leadership role on a regular basis, and not just in times of war or crisis? Don’t you think that the government ought to finally stop playing the silent ‘Big Brother’ role? I don’t really want to bring personal political feelings on the election into this discussion, but something that intrigues me about Obama is the fact that he has repeatedly said (yes, saying is not doing, but you have to have faith – right?) that he will push for government transparency in all facets. I believe that this could be a positive step in the American history as we might see a government that doesn’t actually work for the people, but also with the people and by the people! A government that actually shows what they are doing, how they are doing it, and why they are doing it sounds very progressive, but in today’s day and age, doesn’t it seem practical? I may just be dreaming here, but it’s cool to imagine it!!


Nuclear energy is an entirely viable option at this point.

Yes, I agree with that! I actually posted this article in an effort to get the ball rolling about nuclear energy and the pros and cons surrounding it - ie: waste issues and the time it takes to develop nuclear facilities. What caught my eye in particular was the line, “US regulators have ignored expert safety advice in an attempt to cut corners and fast track the completion of a $4 billion nuclear fuel facility currently under construction near Aiken, South Carolina.” Normally, to my understanding, there are innumerable regulations that must be approved by health and safety professionals (usually through various government departments or agencies) and upheld before further progress can be made and such facilities can open. I mean, you can’t even open a restaurant or small business without a safety inspector’s approval or an OSHA representative inspecting it first, and I see no reason for a nuclear facility to be any different. For this reason, nuclear power is usually criticized because it takes so long to develop – usually 10 years, if not more. The idea that the regulators themselves may be ignoring safety advise in order to allow the facility in SC to open sooner is scary.

That article is ridiculous. The government doesn't build nuclear plants, they're built and run by private firms.

I fail to see how this is ‘rediculous.’ Of course the government does not build them or run them. However, the federal government works with the contractor, in a ‘project management’ role. Fortunately for American citizens, the contractor, the government Energy Department, and state Ecology Department all have quality control systems in place in order to determine if there are any problems or causes for concern. Of course the people building it want to be meticulous and very detail oriented. However, the nature of man is to make mistakes on occasion – human error. The problems are supposed to be caught and corrected to the satisfaction of state inspectors, and the state will not issue a permit for any part of the facility until it is certain it is safe to operate. But still, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) hushing-up a ‘highly critical assessment’ of a mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility’s engineering (designed for the purpose of converting recovered plutonium from nuclear warheads into fuel rods for use in civil nuclear power) by its top independent reviewer is a ‘rediculous’ piece of information. I’m sorry, but I am under the impression that things like this are fairly common – even in today’s day and age. Just spend a day at any automotive factory in metro-Detriot and you will be able to note a hundred safety hazards – and those are major facilities, employing thousands of people. I’m sure there are hundreds of individuals charged with the task of noting the hazards of each job and solving them. But hey, time is money! Sometimes the costs are too high and the value of the workers too less. As bad as it sounds, some hazards are worth the risk. It wouldn’t surprise me if the private firms building these facilities took a few liberties or cut some corners in order to get around seemingly needless regulations - yes even for something this significant. Look at NASA and how many problems happen with the shuttles. To this day there are space missions that remain grounded because of errors. Also, there have been many recorded accidents and near-disasters in the past caused by small, unnoticed errors. I’m sure, that there have been many mistakes that have gone unnoticed in the past, too!

Any new plant in the US would exceed the safety of plants built during the last nuclear boom, and with the largest nuclear accident in the US being three mile island (an incident which caused ZERO deaths) how risky do they think these plants will be?

Yes, nobody died as a direct result of such nuclear accidents. But remember, both the Three Mile Island incident and the Chernobyl incident were the result of a combination of design shortcomings AND operator error. Also, the statistical lack of mortality does not prove that there is no possibility for health effects. Deterministic (or threshold) effects, such as those experienced by an individual after acute exposure to high doses of radiation include skin burns, damage to bone marrow, and sterility (as seen in the infamous Chernobyl incident). However, there is the risk of stochastic (non-threshold) effects, such as increased susceptibility to cancerous growths. Various comprehensive studies that have been done do not show an increased risk in cancer mortality for individuals in close proximity to any of the 62 nuclear facilities in the US, however the World Health Organization asserts that such studies includes large areas and large populations – and in doing so, would not be able to detect smaller-range increases in cancer onset. Note that I also have not yet mentioned the possibility of environmental impact, such as the effects of water and soil contamination, and the possible negative impact that could develop as such effects linger. Indeed, there has been a considerable effort to improve the standards of currently operating facilities and of future plants. What is important to note, though, is that the extreme difficulty to insure the plants pushes the already high costs of these facilities as well! With that, once the private contractors secure major insurance policies, they are essentially wiped clean of any risk of blame – for at that time, the blame will most-likely fall on the plant workers themselves.