"We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."
- JFK 9/12/1962, seven years before man landed on the moon.
As disappointed as I was by Sen. Obama’s energy proposal, I like the sound of Gov. Richardson’s energy proposal.
We need a man-on-the-moon program to end this addiction, this hemorrhage. But we need it much faster and much more boldly than people are suggesting.
When John F. Kennedy challenged this country to reach the moon, he challenged us to get there in TEN years, not twenty, or thirty, or forty.
On energy policy, we need to change fast, or sink slowly.
I am issuing a call to action, for Congress, the energy industry, and the public.
I am calling for a new American revolution – an energy and climate revolution.
People in politics and industry might say it can’t be done. My goals are too lofty.
I am not comparing myself to JFK, but I know that when he challenged Americans to reach the moon in 10 years, America responded by saying, “How can we help?” We didn’t say, “It can’t be done.”
***
The United States consumes about 21 million barrels of oil per day. After Katrina, about 65% of this was imported.
By 2020, with hard work and the cooperation of Congress and the American people, we will reduce our oil dependence by at least 6 million barrels a day, probably 8 million, and possibly as much as 10 million.
Every single facet of American life, foreign policy and domestic policy, our economy, education and beyond is touched by our energy policy. If we do not get off oil, we are doomed. The next president will be the successor to a president who did his best to work for the oil industry and against the American people. If it is (God willing) a Democrat, he or she will have majorities in the House and Senate and a populace ready to change our energy structure.
Now is not the time for half measures and piecemeal strategies.
Now is not the time for half measures and piecemeal strategies
I agree 100%. ANWAR Ho!
And when we get done drilling there, we can put a wind farm right next to Sen. Kennedy’s palatial estate.
Because this cause is too important to let asthetics of the rich & powerful get in the way…
The point is to move away from oil and drilling in ANWAR does nothing to move us toward that goal. I agree that wind farms should go wherever they will be of most benefit, but it’s interesting to see a pro-eminent domain argument from a conservative…
I’m liking Richardson more and more of late. Here’s hoping we hear more from him.
It’s a damn good thing Reagan and Chimpy Sr. reversed Carter’s plans…
Of course, Chimpy Sr. is largely a creation of Saudi Oil interests and even the Bin Laden family.
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0503-22.htm
Read Carter’s energy speech and weep for our dead in Iraq and our children’s future.
Read what Carter had to say then about the necessity of acting quickly so that we wouldn’t have to face pressure to solve the problem with nuclear energy.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/filmmore/ps_energy.html
I always liked that Kennedy quote. “We choose to go to the moon and do the other things…”
I told what’s-his-name and the other one, too!
I’ve heard it said that if we increased our gas mileage standards by just 5%, we would be free of foreign oil.
How ’bout it, Big 3? EPA? Bueller?
I think you underestimate that we have a “populace ready to change our energy structure.”
People talk a good game, but at the end of the day how many people do you know who are spending $20,000+ for solar panels on their house or buying a hybrid car? How many people who can afford to use private planes are choosing not to or will choose not to? Moreover, any change will have to go through Detroit. Good luck with the Michigan Senators.
Hedley, there are so many measures in addition to the two most visible that you mentioned. Some simple ones you might want to think about: CFLs to replace incandescent bulbs, high-efficiency standard fluorescent bulbs and ballasts, efficient HVAC, satisfactory home insulation, building management systems. Every measure I mentioned would pay back to the typical American in cost savings in 2 years or less. Maybe you don’t care about saving money (or the environment) but the rest of us surely do.
We CAN do this.
We have done harder things. Good for Richardson, he is showing something most foreign to Republicant’s: LEADERSHIP and VISION.
ANWAR is just a Conservative ignoramus’ talking point:
1. America uses around 21 million barrels a day; ANWAR best estimate is around 1 million new bbls a day. Less than 5%.
2. The Alaska Oil Pipeline is maxed out already with the Prudhoe Bay oil; even if the oil is taken from the proposed ANWAR field there’s no way to bring it here.
3. Most of the Alaskan oil taken out today is already promised to Japan. The Global oil companies will sell new oil to the highest bidder.
Idiots.
z adura, while I appreciate the patronizing lecture, you miss my point. The idea that the “populace” is chomping at the bit to “change our energy structure” (i.e., less dependence on oil) is, I believe, a false notion at the present. Maybe one day that will change, but for now, I don’t think most people are willing to make the sacrifices that will be necessary to significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Ya know, I am getting really pissed that no one has thanked me for closing off that block of italics.
I did, Jerry. In my heart. =)
I just thought that OW had made a dubious CSS choice.
Hedley, speak for yourself and the populace in and around your trailer. The populace in California surely gets it, which is why we elected a Republican governor who suppports a cap-and-trade system, higher vehicle emissions standards and aggressive energy efficiency programs. Californians use about 40% less energy per capita than the rest of the nation.
Do Americans want out of Iraq, out of policing the middle east, out of being the enforcer for Saudi princes, and are they tired of paying exorbitant gas prices? Then they’re in favor of changing our energy structure.
“Trailer.” What a witty comment. Good for you and California. There are, however, 49 other states.
They may be “in favor” of changing it, but that does not equate to being “in favor” of making the necessary sacrifices to change it. Maybe that will change, but we aren’t there yet.
Hedley, what evidence do you have to support your claim? Or are you just talking out your butt?
Hedley:
California is only one state, to be sure. However, they also contain over 10% of the population, with 13% of the country’s GDP. (to say nothing of the oft-ballyhooed statement that California on its own would be in the top ten regarding GDP), so even if it’s only a step in the right direction, it’s a large one.
There’s the environment and youth as opposed to the environment concern for the public at large. Care to revise your assessment in light of American opinion?
Richardson is awesome… definitely the smartest Dem candidate we have. This proposal makes a whole lot of sense.
Have you seen his new campaign ads? You should post this video, it’s hilarious:
http://www.thenewsroom.com/details/313283/Campaign+2008?c_id=jlt
Oooh, he said “butt.” Heh, Heh.
The evidence is all around. You’re talking about light bulbs. Important? Sure. But again, not much of a sacrifice to switch light bulbs. When you start seeing people taking steps with big ticket items, then you will know the “populace” is ready.
Hedley, your ignorance of this issue is beyond comprehension. Lighting represents the single largest component of energy load for commercial buildings. If every household replaced just three 60-watt light bulbs, the reduction in pollution would be the equivalent of taking 3.5 million cars off the road. These are not hard choices for the populace — even Darwin prize winners like yourself.
America is ready and has always been ready. The project that Richardson is talking about and that Oliver has been talking about for months is about creating better alternatives. Hedley foolishly uses the solar panel bit- not many people have $20k for solar panels and some like me don’t have the kind of exposure that they require. But solar and wind farms subsidized like oil is currently are a real solution that anyone can do. I just got a card in the mail that said for $5-10 month I can switch to green sources. That is what America needs. More hybrid and alternative fuel cars is also what America needs. Make it economically viable and America can be the greenest country in the world.
Again, all the Republicans offer is more of the same.
糖尿病 文秘 心脑血管 糖尿病 高血压
A lot of people seem unaware of the fact that petroleum is a source of energy, while electricity is a form of energy. Electricity must be derived from a viable source of energy. The generation and transmission of electricity is also very inefficient compared to, say, burning fossil fuel in an internal combustion engine.
Fortunately we already have that technology — nuclear powered generating plants. Nuclear power is the only power source we currently have that can generate enough electricity to supply our current electrical needs plus supplant the energy we derive from fossil fuels.
That is also, in a nutshell, why solar and wind power have never supplanted fossil fuel: they are not dependable enough, nor do they generate the necessary power required for continuous large-scale electrical consumption.
Until a nuclear infrastructure is online, we need to produce more domestic oil (the Gulf of Mexico is just waiting to be tapped …) and increase our refining capacity. Unless there is more petroleum product than there is demand for it, prices will remain high. That is just an economic fact.
If America is so ready, why isn’t there a line out the door every day at Home Depot, Lowes, etc., with people lining up to buy CFLs?
Because of people like you, perhaps?
Mike, nuclear is a fine option. Can I build a reactor in your backyard? Probably not, and if you go across the country, just about everybody feels the same way. It is damn hard to site new generation facilities and it is almost impossible to site new nuclear. The same applies incidentally to spent-fuel waste sites.
Secondly, while nuclear is a cleaner burning source of energy, it is not a renewable source. As a result, the price is a function of the amount of available fuel. Uranium is a rare metal, and as its demand increases, so does its price. Take a look at the historical spot prices. If you follow the economics of this as the number of reactors increases, you realize that this is likely to end up putting us on the same carousel as we’re currently on with oil.
Hedley, we have a president who has made a virtue of ignorance. In him, you no doubt have a kindred spirit. The path to energy independence requires public policy and a sense of shared purpose. That is why I applaud Bill Richardson for his leadership and pity that we are considered countrymen.
Unfortunately, “Not In My Back Yard” seems to equally apply to oil, gas, coal, solar, wind power, nuclear, etc. Nobody wants the refinery, the mine, the wells, the noisy windmills.