dems energy plan-Im kind of angry here

[Spider-Bite]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18442216/

Energy bill calls for ethanol to replace gas

Bid to promote liquefied coal as a motor fuel substitute is stalled

WASHINGTON - Lawmakers moved ahead Wednesday on a broad energy bill to replace one-quarter of the nation’s gasoline with ethanol.
A bid by coal-state senators to promote liquefied coal as a motor fuel substitute stalled amid a debate over global warming.
The overall legislation as developed Wednesday by a Senate committee would require a sevenfold increase in ethanol production to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022. The proposal also would authorize loan guarantees and other incentives for ethanol research and plant construction.

Senate leaders have said they would like to take up the legislation before Memorial Day as the first major energy initiative since Democrats assumed control of Congress.
The measure would establish an overall goal of curtailing future gasoline use by as much as 40 percent below what it otherwise is expected to be in 2030.
The centerpiece would mean aggressively replacing gasoline with ethanol. This currently is made from corn but in the future also is expected to be produced from cellulosic feedstock such as switchgrass, which is a hardy prairie grass in great abundance, as well as wood chips and corn stems.
The Senate bill includes requirements for more efficient appliances and light bulbs, and supports production of more fuel efficient cars. The legislation had wide bipartisan support ahead of a vote expected Wednesday in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
But senators from coal-states questioned why the bill omitted any reference to liquefied coal. They said this alternative fuel and technology is well known and could supplant billions of gallons of gasoline with a widely available domestic fuel source.
“Here’s an opportunity to vote for U.S. coal and against Saudi oil,” said Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho.
Sens. Craig Thomas, R-Wyo., and Jim Bunning, R-Ky., offered a proposal to require production of 21 billion gallons a year of diesel, made from coal, by 2022 — the same year the 36 billion gallon ethanol mandate would go into effect.
The use of coal to replace gasoline would only “enhance the energy security of the United States,” Thomas said. He said coal is the country’s most abundant energy resource.
But converting coal to a liquid fuel itself requires large amounts of energy and produces more carbon dioxide, the leading “greenhouse” gas linked to global warming, than conventional gasoline.
The committee chairman, Democratic Sen. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, urged greater study into the connection between liquefied coal and climate change. He cautioned against shifting the focus of the bill away from renewable biofuels such as ethanol.
The committee, along a 12-11 party-line vote, rejected the liquefied coal amendment. Both Republicans and Democrats agreed the issue would be revived when the bill gets to the full Senate.
Bingaman and other opponents of Thomas’ amendment said that before coal is to play a major role in replacing gasoline, there is a need for more assurance that the carbon dioxide from coal conversion will be captured and contained.
Otherwise “we’re setting ourselves up for a disaster. ... The carbon issue is that important,” said Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont.
The bill would authorize increased spending for carbon sequestration research and proposes $500 million over five years on large-scale carbon capture and storage demonstration projects involving coal.
The Senate bill would also:

• <LI class=textBodyBlack>Expedite new energy efficiency standards for an array of appliances from dishwashers and refrigerators to electric motors and advanced, energy-saving lighting systems. <LI class=textBodyBlack>Authorize new research into development of electric vehicles, including “plug-in” hybrids that would use conventional power grids, and a $1.3 billion, decade-long program in vehicle battery research.
• Require the government to buy more fuel efficient vehicles, use more electricity from renewable energy sources and cut energy consumption in federal buildings by 30 percent by 2015.

------------------------------------------------------------

I'm kind of pissed. This is better than nothing, and it's better than anything the republicans did on energy, but it's still weak as hell. You know how much land it will take to make ethanol? This is really week. The technology exists today to do much better than this. And the government buying energy efficent vehicles isn't enough to make any difference. They need laws on all vehicles being sold, in order for it to make any difference at all.

I'm not just kidn of pissed. I'm really pissed. This is total jack. Were getting ripped off here!

Me this 25 year old, who hasn't even begun college yet, came up with a way better plan than this. I'm sure most of you looking at this saw it, and many of you probably agree with me.

I need to be President.

 

[squeekness]

I thought I saw a video of a guy who made a car engine that ran on water. Why aren't they developing something like that?

 

[Spider-Bite]

I thought I saw a video of a guy who made a car engine that ran on water. Why aren't they developing something like that?

because our entire government is freaking corrupt!

 

[Mr. Credible]

I thought I saw a video of a guy who made a car engine that ran on water. Why aren't they developing something like that?

for the same reason the cure for aids and cancer hasn't been released to the public yet: because out government is too heavily invested in pharmecudicals (sp?) and oil.

the patent for the water-fueled car was bought out by an anonymous source, and hasn't been heard of since.

i hate this stupid country.

 

[Mr. Credible]

oh, ps:

i'm glad somebody is trying to do something about our energy/glabal warming crisis. but i agree, it's not enough.

the government needs to put a law into effect that forces automobiles to get at least ___% fuel efficiency. it's ridiculous that we are still making cars that get 10 miles to the gallon, when the technology exists to get 60-70 mpg. it simply shouldn't be allowed. it's a blatant disregard for, and a waste of a non-renewable resource.

 

[squeekness]

^^ I agree. we can put a guy on the moon, but can't improve our miliage?

 

[Spider-Bite]

look at this. this is what they should be implementing.

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?t=269071&highlight=energy

 

[Spider-Bite]

I bet you if Al Gore gets in the race well get a better plan than this. whenever he talks about this he always reminds us that we don't need to carry 2,000 pounds of steel with us everywhere we go. I'm sure he'd support tighter energy efficency standards which is really what needs to be done.

 

[KingOfDreams]

I thought I saw a video of a guy who made a car engine that ran on water. Why aren't they developing something like that?

[Hyde]It's a car that runs on water, man![/Hyde]

But seriously though, we really do need a good, strong, progressive, new energy initiative. I think bio-fuel has a big future and is the most practical at this stage but of course that would require lots of land...but we already produce more than enough crops it seems...unless we import some of that. Completely electric cars could work too.

 

[BRUTAL]

because our entire government is freaking corrupt!

i hate this stupid country.

Then leave...

 

[KingOfDreams]

Then leave...

Dissenting is keeping up with the American ideal of free speech though.

 

[ang_hulk]

look at this. this is what they should be implementing.

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?t=269071&highlight=energy

Im a big fan of this proposal spiderbite and I hoped youd re-post it.Sadly it just makes to many rich guys lose money they really dont need as it is.our goverment would be ok with letting the planet wither away.this plan is great and hopefully you get it published and somthing happens.I dont nesserly say stop producing vipers or vettes(vettes because they are fiber glass not steel put them in front) but not as many and if somone has the cash to drive it let them but for godsakes dont fuel it with gasoline!.

 

[BRUTAL]

Dissenting is keeping up with the American ideal of free speech though.

... and no one is telling you your opinions are wrong. I am saying if they truly feel that our "entire government is corrupt" and that they "hate this stupid country" then why are still living here? Seems like they feel it might be a whole lot better elsewhere.

 

[Mr. Smash'n Bash]

The funny thing is, nothing we do will really make a difference until China gets it's act together.

 

[Spider-Bite]

The funny thing is, nothing we do will really make a difference until China gets it's act together.

the U.S. is one of the world's biggest polluters. The thing is that although china pollutes more than we do, if you add up all of china's pollutin and divide it by the number of citizens, and then do the same for the U.S. were are polluting considerably worse than China is.

China has one third of the world's population in it's little country, and they don't have the economic ability or federal funding to bring energy into the new age like we do.

We can advance solar panel roofing, and later through trade help China cut down on it's pollution as well.

And motor vehicle companies that sell here, also sell there.

I dont' know if you've read my energy plan, but if we did that, later down the road we could also make it illegal for any companies that that don't meet energy efficency requirements over there, don't get to sell any over here.

We can say that in order to sell in the U.S., than all of the vehicles you sell to china or any country, must get so many miles per gallon or so many miles per killowatt if they are electric cars.

The U.S. is the big buck. No company wants to be left out of the U.S. market. They would be willing to take a loss over there in order to sell over here.

 

[Spider-Bite]

... and no one is telling you your opinions are wrong. I am saying if they truly feel that our "entire government is corrupt" and that they "hate this stupid country" then why are still living here? Seems like they feel it might be a whole lot better elsewhere.

1. why do you think poor people live in the ghetto? It's not easy to leave, even when your allowed to.

2. This is home. Everything and everyone we ever knew or loved is right here.

3. the whole world sucks. America just sucks less.

4. Not everybody wants to be a cowardly refugee who ran away when the going got tough.

Just because you get mad at politicains or criminals, doesn't mean you have to run away to some other country.

 

[hippie_hunter]

the U.S. is one of the world's biggest polluters. The thing is that although china pollutes more than we do, if you add up all of china's pollutin and divide it by the number of citizens, and then do the same for the U.S. were are polluting considerably worse than China is.

In 2004, China produced 54% of the amount greenhouse gas we produced. This year, China is expected to become the largest emitter of greenhouse gasses. What does that tell you?

The World Bank stated that sixteen of the twentiest polluted cities in the world are in China, and that includes the most polluted city in the world. Beijing is the world's most polluted capital.

Have you ever been to China. In the cities, the air smells horrible, especially in Beijing, and there are days where the sky isn't even blue. That's how bad it is.

China has one third of the world's population in it's little country, and they don't have the economic ability or federal funding to bring energy into the new age like we do.

China has the economic and public funding to do so. They just choose not so.

We can advance solar panel roofing, and later through trade help China cut down on it's pollution as well.

Except China isn't going to want help. Do you know a major reason why China is going through such an economic boom along with cheap labor and a growing consumer market? China lacks strict enviromental controls! Because of that corporations around world want to build production facilities in China because of the low costs for enviromental concerns. This brings money in China. China isn't going to want to lose so much investment.

And motor vehicle companies that sell here, also sell there.

And they aren't going to do a thing either.

I dont' know if you've read my energy plan, but if we did that, later down the road we could also make it illegal for any companies that that don't meet energy efficency requirements over there, don't get to sell any over here.

We can say that in order to sell in the U.S., than all of the vehicles you sell to china or any country, must get so many miles per gallon or so many miles per killowatt if they are electric cars.

We can't do that. That's pretty much illegal. You can't punish a company for doing something that is pretty much legal in another country.

The U.S. is the big buck. No company wants to be left out of the U.S. market. They would be willing to take a loss over there in order to sell over here.

That's never going to happen. Such a thing is completely impractical.

 

[Spider-Bite]

In 2004, China produced 54% of the amount greenhouse gas we produced. This year, China is expected to become the largest emitter of greenhouse gasses. What does that tell you?

nothing I don't already know.

The World Bank stated that sixteen of the twentiest polluted cities in the world are in China, and that includes the most polluted city in the world. Beijing is the world's most polluted capital.

Have you ever been to China. In the cities, the air smells horrible, especially in Beijing, and there are days where the sky isn't even blue. That's how bad it is.

that still doesn't change the fact that when you get down to the individual person, we are polluting more.

China has the economic and public funding to do so. They just choose not so.

true, I guess, but we still have more, and were also choosing not to do so.

Except China isn't going to want help. Do you know a major reason why China is going through such an economic boom along with cheap labor and a growing consumer market? China lacks strict enviromental controls! Because of that corporations around world want to build production facilities in China because of the low costs for enviromental concerns. This brings money in China. China isn't going to want to lose so much investment.

the could economically benefit from this. at least lower and middle class could.

And they aren't going to do a thing either.

I'm not sure what you meant there.

We can't do that. That's pretty much illegal. You can't punish a company for doing something that is pretty much legal in another country.

it's not illegal. it's called trade agreement. that's like saying we can't punish countries for building weapons we don't want them to have. you can implement sanctions of any kind as long as the government passes them.

That's never going to happen. Such a thing is completely impractical.

that's not impractical at all. I'm surprised you'd even say that or think that. Your forgetting how international economics work.

 

[hippie_hunter]

true, I guess, but we still have more, and were also choosing not to do so.

But we still have enviromental protections in place, compared to the very few China has

the could economically benefit from this. at least lower and middle class could.

China doesn't care. Plain and simple. They don't want to clean up their act.

I'm not sure what you meant there.

The auto companies aren't going to do anything. They're just going to adjust themselves region by region.

it's not illegal. it's called trade agreement. that's like saying we can't punish countries for building weapons we don't want them to have. you can implement sanctions of any kind as long as the government passes them.

Weapons are different than products you want to sell on the consumer market.

that's not impractical at all. I'm surprised you'd even say that or think that. Your forgetting how international economics work.

It is impractical. Mostly because it's hopeful naive thinking. Whenever you post your plans on the enviroment, the economy, etc., your goals are lofty and they have good intentions from your heart.

The problem is that they are too lofty and are mostly based on hopeful thinking that just isn't going to happen.

 

[Spider-Bite]

But we still have enviromental protections in place, compared to the very few China has

I can't deny that the U.S. does a better job governing than China does.

China doesn't care. Plain and simple. They don't want to clean up their act.

some people in china's government care, and some people don't. I disagree with their methods, but to say they dont' care is going out on a limb and making a really big assumption. if they didn't care about their people they wouldn't bother ever trying to do anything about anything.

The auto companies aren't going to do anything. They're just going to adjust themselves region by region.

the auto companies will do whatever is most profitable. sometimes in order to sell profit you have to obey the law. I'm just saying that better laws should be in place.

Weapons are different than products you want to sell on the consumer market.

not when those products are causing mass destruction. and it's called trade agreement. We have all kinds of laws just like this in place right now with regards to other products unrelated to energy. You said yourself NAFTA needs to be modified. Now your calling trade agreements illegal.

It is impractical. Mostly because it's hopeful naive thinking. Whenever you post your plans on the enviroment, the economy, etc., your goals are lofty and they have good intentions from your heart.

you even said you thought this plan was pretty good, even though you disagreed with some of it.

the problem with my plans is that my government and my fellow voters have their heads too far up their asses to do what's right. I'm simply saying what needs to be done. It's not my fault and it's not a flaw in my beliefs. There are threee things stopping what I want done from being done.
1. Corruption
2. Ignorance
3. Fear of change

If any of the presidential candidates from either party stepped up and endorsed this plan, I gurantee they would be elected president. they wont because they are too corrupt.

The problem is that they are too lofty and are mostly based on hopeful thinking that just isn't going to happen.

Aren't most of mine and your political beliefs based on the hope that something good will come?

That's kind of the opposite of a bad thing.

I said that companies will do what they have to in order to sell to American consumers. They will because it's the most profitable thing to do. Nobody wants to be left out of the U.S. market, and you called that impractical.

Don't get me wrong, I think you are smarter than many republicans and more open minded, however I think many of your beliefs or way of looking at things come from loyalty to the republican party, and not from independant thinking.

 

[hippie_hunter]

some people in china's government care, and some people don't. I disagree with their methods, but to say they dont' care is going out on a limb and making a really big assumption. if they didn't care about their people they wouldn't bother ever trying to do anything about anything.

They really don't. China is raking in the dough because of their lax enviromental policies. The people aren't going to complain because the standard of living is rising. The government has no need to do much about it.

They'll say that there are enviromental problems to put on a good face for the West, but in truth. There is no significant movement to do anything like there is in the United States and Europe.

the auto companies will do whatever is most profitable. sometimes in order to sell profit you have to obey the law. I'm just saying that better laws should be in place.

Exactly, by doing the bare minimum. And I do agree that better laws should be in place. However, we should concentrate on the United States more than China.

not when those products are causing mass destruction. and it's called trade agreement. We have all kinds of laws just like this in place right now with regards to other products unrelated to energy. You said yourself NAFTA needs to be modified. Now your calling trade agreements illegal.

But people need automobiles. That is why nothing is going to change. In China at least. They want General Motors and other companies to sell their products in China.

And I don't recall saying that NAFTA needs to be modified. I support NAFTA and I hope it eventually leads into a psuedo-European Union styled organization that includes a currency union.

you even said you thought this plan was pretty good, even though you disagreed with some of it.

For the United States. The United States is not China. The United States and China are completely different and they should be treated as such. Just like the United States is not Sweden, like blind_fury wishes it was).

China just needs to lay down on the economic growth before any serious enviromental movement can begin.

the problem with my plans is that my government and my fellow voters have their heads too far up their asses to do what's right. I'm simply saying what needs to be done. It's not my fault and it's not a flaw in my beliefs. There are threee things stopping what I want done from being done.
1. Corruption
2. Ignorance
3. Fear of change

I have to agree with you there.

If any of the presidential candidates from either party stepped up and endorsed this plan, I gurantee they would be elected president. they wont because they are too corrupt.

The enviroment is not going to be the deciding factor in the 2008 election. It'll come up soon. But not now. Right now the deciding factors are:

1. Being a big name
2. Being different from George W. Bush
3. Security
4. Fundraising
5. Appeal

Aren't most of mine and your political beliefs based on the hope that something good will come?

I would say so.

That's kind of the opposite of a bad thing.

I'm not saying that bad things will come. I just don't see some ideals of your plans to be that feasable.

I said that companies will do what they have to in order to sell to American consumers. They will because it's the most profitable thing to do. Nobody wants to be left out of the U.S. market, and you called that impractical.

But the government doesn't have the right to exclude a company from the U.S. market. That is against the idea of a mostly capitalistic free market economy.

Don't get me wrong, I think you are smarter than many republicans and more open minded, however I think many of your beliefs or way of looking at things come from loyalty to the republican party, and not from independant thinking.

I don't think political affiliation has much to do with this. While we do have disagreements on how government should be run. I think we need to look beyond our beleifs and take a look at reality.

- The United States government is not going to exclude a company from selling it's products in the market unless it contains illegal substances (like drugs, DDT, etc.), potential for instant destruction (like certain weapons), etc.

- China and the United States are completely different. What works in the United States isn't necessarily going to work in China and vice-versa. Our political systems are different. Our economic systems our different. Our cultures are different. Our enviroments are different. I think the only way people can truely understand such a thing is if they see it with their own eyes and experience it.

- Corporations aren't going to do much for the enviroment in China because the Chinese Government lets them. And because the corporations are making China's economy boom and bring in a lot of money, China isn't going to complain much. The people nor the government.

 

[ScottyBBadd]

The funny thing is, nothing we do will really make a difference until China gets it's act together.

Probably true.

 

[Kritish]

Biofuel is nothing but crap, it would take far too much land to create enough corn for us to power our vehicles. We need something that won’t go down the crapper the moment we get a bad crop. Hydrogen and electric anyone?

Then leave...

Brutal, when the hell did you become such a nationalistic jack ass? What do you think would happen if people just left the moment things started to get a little rough? People during the French revolution sure as hell didn’t leave, they changed what was going wrong with their country.