1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. We've had very few donations over the year. I'm going to be short soon as some personal things are keeping me from putting up the money. If you have something small to contribute it's greatly appreciated. Please put your screen name as well so that I can give you credit. Click here: Donations
    Dismiss Notice

Politics Romney - Is he ready?

Discussion in 'Tilted Philosophy, Politics, and Economics' started by rogue49, May 15, 2012.

  1. Tully Mars

    Tully Mars Very Tilted

    Location:
    Yucatan, Mexico
    Loves me some "Onion."
     
  2. Aceventura

    Aceventura Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    North Carolina
    What percent of power in Germany is solar?

    I don't argue that there have been some incremental developments and that there will continue to be some in the area of solar energy - and that some areas on the planet it can be employed better than in some other areas. However, solar is not cost effective on a large scale currently and requires a redundant grid for backup, cloudy days, and night. If Germany is willing to bet its economic future on solar, that is their choice, but I doubt Germany would remain an economic powerhouse in the world it they did.

    No I don't. I generally have a binary view, so success is success, failure is failure. I do not put any subjective values moral judgements on success or failure.

    Yes. It should be part of a comprehensive energy plan. If there is a vision for something like solar, no one is communicating it in a manner that will lead to any type of major accomplishments on the scales of hydro-power, i.e. Hoover Damn, Niagara Falls.
     
  3. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    Solar makes up about 3% of their capacity, and there are forecasts suggesting it could be 25% within 40 years. Germany is one of the top solar producers in the world.

    About weather they will remain an economic powerhouse, you like hedging, right? They're hedging with renewables: wind, solar, hydro, bio, etc.

    Here are some of their targets:
    • Renewable electricity - 35% by 2020 and 80% by 2050
    • Renewable energy - 18% by 2020, 30% by 2030, and 60% by 2050
    • Energy efficiency - Cutting the national electrical consumption 50% below 2008 levels by 2050
    Renewable energy in Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    In terms of economic future, unless you take away the wind, sun, water, etc., Germany shouldn't have much to worry about with regard to their energy infrastructure.

    What is the U.S. doing in comparison? Is it preparing for the post-fossil-fuel era?
     
  4. ASU2003

    ASU2003 Very Tilted

    Location:
    Where ever I roam
    Solar and Wind have grown quite a bit in the past few years in the US. It might not be a fast as it could be, but there are large scale installations of solar panels and wind turbines that I have seen in MI, OH,, FL, NV, and AZ.

    Germany is doing really good with solar power, because they realize if the tax the polluting forms of energy and offer a guaranteed and above market price for solar power sold back to the grid, will get individuals and companies to invest a bigger upfront cost.
     
  5. Tully Mars

    Tully Mars Very Tilted

    Location:
    Yucatan, Mexico
    I see the UK press finally agrees Mitt is doing something right... he's leaving.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

    Location:
    Baltimore/DC
    Yes, but please contrast the two different potential reactions.

    If Obama had done this, the GOP and related right-leaning media would be continuous raving hordes on this "incompetence" and show of lack of ability.
    Since this is Romney and his opponents are the Dems and Obama...
    - The noting of it will be done relatively light by Obama's team.
    - No organized or consistent noting of it by the Dems (just valid points made in the future but lost in the noise & indignation of the GOP)
    - Only the Media will harp on it, but only because it's something to make tabloid and sell viewers/readers. (and will be distracted by the next thing)

    Say what you will about the GOP and other firebrands,
    but they REALLY know how to stick on a subject together and light a ongoing flame about it. (correct or not)

    The Dems are apathetic & inconsistent. (correct or not)

    Damn those Libs. Bunch of Hippies. Learn how to do it right. (no pun intended) :p
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. roachboy

    roachboy Very Tilted

  8. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    "Unconditional Support for Israel"

    It's on the checklist for the Republican platform. I think it's right after "Cut Taxes."

    Though when you think about it, this is perhaps a good move for Romney. It isn't merely a way of securing the pro-Israel vote (though not, as it happens, the Jewish vote), it's also a way of securing the anti-Iran vote, or, further, the Islamophobe vote.

    Many Republican voters want a president who will stand up to the Islamic threat. This, of course, will require military intervention.

    U.S.A.!
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2012
  9. redux

    redux Very Tilted Donor

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    No surprise, given Romney's foreign policy advisers....many former Cheney cronies.
    • the belligerent John Bolton, who served briefly as Bush's UN ambassador but resigned when he knew he wouldnt be confirmed...and being rumored as Romney's Sec. of State
    • Eric Edleman, former Cheney aid behind the outing of Valerie Plame
    • Elliot Cohen, co-founder of the Project for a New American Century
    • former CIA office Cofer Black, who led Bush's torture program
    • Robert Kagan and Dan Senor of the Foreign Policy Initiative, the new and improved version of the Project for a New American Century
    These chicken hawks even have Colin Powell saying:
    "I don't know who all of his advisers are, but I've seen some of the names and some of them are quite far to the right. And sometimes they might be in a position to make judgments or recommendations to the candidate that should get a second thought..."​
     
  10. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    Damn. That looks atrocious.
     
  11. Indigo Kid

    Indigo Kid Getting Tilted

    Over the last few days "Mitt The Twit" is proving to be a gigantic International asshole - not just an American one. At the Olympic Ceremony he states something about whether the UK would be able to keep "it safe" but had to voice his own small minded concerns. Ouch! The UK used to be our allies. After him going there, I bet they're worried what kind of egocentric President if (Gawd-forbid!) he were to get elected here.

    He embarresses us at every turn and his little friendly "Campaign" visit in Israel ---- saying the Israelis have His backing to bomb Irona was waaay out of line. And dangerous as hell.

    Why did he go there and act like they need his approval on ANYTHING?
     
  12. Tully Mars

    Tully Mars Very Tilted

    Location:
    Yucatan, Mexico
    The crap he's saying overseas is disturbing but something he said about a week ago really gave me the chills-

    Yeah, just what the US needs... another Cheney type VP. Fuck me.
     
  13. Aceventura

    Aceventura Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    North Carolina
    Some context. Germany is subsidizing solar power to the tune of about $130b. Subsidies they are going to cut. Here is an interesting article.

    Why Germany is phasing out its solar-power subsidies. - Slate Magazine

    Solar has issues, perhaps one day those issues will be addressed. I stand by my point - Germany will need to carefully measure future investments in solar, if they "speculate" their economic future on solar, it is their choice, but no one I would make.
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2012
  14. roachboy

    roachboy Very Tilted

    first off, if the present situation is accurately characterized as a balance-sheet recession, driven by collapse of asset value which freezes up borrowing and is for this reason not likely (based on the history of other such balance sheet recessions--japan in the 90s, the depression of the 30s) to respond to monetarist policy and will definitely be worsened by ill-considered moves toward what for politeness sake we'll call "fiscal consolidation" then it follows that investment on the part of the state not only in solar technology but in a whole host of other areas of economic activity is a very good idea because, if the model is accurate, the state will function as the motor for economic activity in this kind of recession. and if you like this nitwit socio-economic form we call capitalism, you should like the state filling this role in this context because without it, we are well and truly fucked. look at the record. hooverite lunacy is the worst imaginable idea in this context. and this is one of a long list of reasons why romney is not ready to be elected to anything at all.
     
  15. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    Don't get hung up on solar. Germany isn't banking on solar; it was merely a part of a mix included in their renewable energy plan. Renewable energy makes up 25% of Germany's capacity, while solar is less than 7% of renewable capacity. If they're phasing out solar subsidies due to efficiency problems, it's not to suggest that the wider renewable energy policy is a bust.

    Hydroelectricity, wind, biofuels, biomass, geothermal, etc., make up the lion's share of Germany's capacity for renewables. As for energy overall, coal is still number one. Nuclear makes up about as much as renewables, but they're phasing it out in favour of renewables.

    It's a process. It's certainly better than putting too many eggs in one basket.
     
  16. Aceventura

    Aceventura Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    North Carolina
    One can not ignore inefficient investing. When done by government everyone pays a proprtioanal price. When done in the private sector, private investors bear the brunt of the costs.
    --- merged: Jul 30, 2012 4:21 PM ---
    I agree with having a comprehensive energy plan. I agree with an incremental approach involving investments in alternatives to fossil fuels and "clean"/cleaner use of fossil fuels, but as long as fossil fuels are cheap and abundant, fossil fuels will dominate. My primary point is that the US does not have a comprehensive plan and that the US lacks visionary leadership in this regard.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 6, 2012
  17. ASU2003

    ASU2003 Very Tilted

    Location:
    Where ever I roam
    Fossil fuels aren't really cheap. Just that they don't have to pay for all of the costs associated with them.

    You are right that the US has a very ineffective energy plan. Even though we have reduced coal use and are using a lot more renewable energy, we could be doing a lot more. And even a worldwide plan would be a good idea. But, a state by state plan for what would be best is something that the Sierra Club or some group should be doing. It might be more insulation to reduce energy use, or using solar and solar thermal in the Southwest.

    Energy Perspectives, Total Energy - Energy Information Administration

    And individually, people can change their mix by installing their own solar panels, buying into the power companies renewable power, or getting more efficient.
     
  18. Aceventura

    Aceventura Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    North Carolina
    I agree with this also. I think tax policy should account for hidden social costs often not factored into market pricing. If burning coal does $X/heating unit "damage" - a tax should be applied to reflect as best we can the unaccounted social costs (including environmental, health and safety of miner's etc.) - then the cost of other forms of energy with less unaccounted for social cost can accurately be compared. I fear we are just playing a guessing game. I think we would be better served by spending money up front so we get the numbers right. Then we can make informed decisions as opposed to the speculative nature of throwing billions into things that may have no lasting value.
     
  19. redux

    redux Very Tilted Donor

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    Nixon was the first president to call for a national energy policy with a goal of making the US energy independent by 1980. Instead of meeting that goal, he and every president since then has done little to achieve that goal.

    [​IMG]

    Until (surprise) Obama -- domestic oil and natural gas production has increased each of the last three years . In 2011, American oil production (and more drilling opened) reached the highest level in nearly a decade and natural gas production reached an all-time ....despite the rhetoric of the right of Obama being anti-oil and anti-drilling.

    And at the same time, Obama’s investment in clean energy...the largest ever in the US...has resulted in nearly doubling renewable energy generation from wind, solar, and geothermal sources since 2008.

    In 2010, the goal was also to break ground on at least four commercial advanced biorefineries by 2013....done this year.

    And since the stimulus bill, more innovative and cutting edge energy research and grants were at an all time high.

    [​IMG]

    The Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future may not be comprehensive or "visionary" enough for some, but the results speak for themselves.

    Particularly when compared to "drill, baby, drill."
    --- merged: Jul 30, 2012 at 4:30 PM ---
    The Romney energy policy, as much as it has been elucidated and changing with the wind is:
    So, domestic production is up since 2009 (despite most regulations the Rs love to hate), drilling leases are up since 2009, nuclear is up since 2009, but Obama's energy policy is a job killer.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 6, 2012
  20. Aceventura

    Aceventura Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    North Carolina
    Has the increase been a result of any of Obama's policies?

    How long is the "tail" regarding policy implementation and results? 0 years, 1 year, 2 years, 4 years?

    What does the Congressional Research Service (CRS - non-partisan) say about oil production on federal controlled land vs.. non-federal controlled land over the past 4 years?

    Are you sure you want to stand on the premise that Obama deserves credit for the increase in domestic oil production in the past 3 years?

    Note - these are just questions.;) I hesitate to give my views, I am sure my views would be off topic or something.