<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
More reading on this here:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.fightinggoliath.org/">http://www.fightinggoliath.org/</a><br>
<br>
Dave<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 06/02/2010 01:35 PM, Ted Moffett wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTik-8oFBwNQfJgoRo-MQdRFBByhg7K1fRxq84M-p@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div>I suppose the analysis, "Plan B," at the website below, from the
Earth Policy Institute, is not worth reading, compared to the
"critique" you praise, given that you "don't think anyone has said it
better?"</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.earth-policy.org/datacenter/pdf/80by2020doc.pdf">http://www.earth-policy.org/datacenter/pdf/80by2020doc.pdf</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>To more fully flesh out the tax issue regarding fossil fuels:
"Taxing everything that uses fuel... is economic suicide" the no one
has said it better critique states. <strong><em>Yet the Earth Policy
Institute analysis I reference advocates what is regarded by prominent
economists as a reasonable economic policy to assist the transition
away from fossil fuels to other energy sources, "tax shifting.</em></strong>" </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Income taxes, for example, are lowered, to offset taxes on
fossil fuel emissions. The tax burden on the consumer and the tax
revenues to the government can remain stable. The full economic
implications require a professional economic analysis, beyond the scope
of this post.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But to make broad and hyperbolic statements about "economic
suicide" from taxing fossil fuels is to not address the complexities of
some of the proposals on this issue from professional economists. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>There are several other oversimplifications, misrepresentations
and logical errors that should be addressed. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>But this thread once again so far is just restating from the
same participants the same positions in general terms that have been
parsed over and over on Vision2020. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>I'll offer a proposal for fossil fuel oil domestic security that
I do not recall being advocated often, if ever, on Vision2020.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The argument is that we cannot "realistically" lessen our
dependence on fossil fuel oil soon enough to avoid these more
environmentally damaging developments, such as the Alberta tar sands.</div>
<div> </div>
<div><strong><em>Therefore, given this logic, why not open the oil
shale in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming to full scale development? This is
the largest fossil fuel oil deposit in the US, by far. Why is there no
advocacy for this from those arguing on Vision2020 for the saneness of
the Alberta tar sands development? Would they rather Canada shoulder
the environmental damage, rather than the US, if we developed our
domestic oil shale?</em></strong> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>I understand from my reading that one of the problems with shale
development is the huge amount of water required. But for those who
are "realistic" about our needs for fossil fuel oil, they won't object
to Idaho's water resources being diverted to Wyoming for shale
development, assuming this is feasible, correct? </div>
<div> </div>
<div>The most "commercially attractive" oil shale are mostly on
federal land (read "Oil Shale and Tar Sands Program EIS" info at
website below). But if we can stop those big government regulators and
bureaucrats and environmentalists, who might block development, the
free market can work it's magic for domestic oil security. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Info on the immense US oil shale at websites below, with
arguments that this resource can be "realistically" developed:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>From "Oil and Gas Journal":</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/publications/Pubs-NPR/40010-373.pdf">http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/publications/Pubs-NPR/40010-373.pdf</a><br>
</div>
<div>From "Oil Shale and Tar Sands Program EIS":</div>
<div><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/oilshale/">http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/oilshale/</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Domestic fossil fuel oil, more than Saudi Arabia! </div>
<div> </div>
<div>After all, let's be "realistic."</div>
<div>------------------------------------------</div>
<div>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett<br>
</div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 6/2/10, <b class="gmail_sendername">lfalen</b>
<<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com">lfalen@turbonet.com</a>>
wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Paul<br>
An excellent critique. I don't think anyone has said it better.<br>
Roger<br>
-----Original message-----<br>
From: Paul Rumelhart <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a><br>
Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 13:34:48 -0700<br>
To: "<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:nickgier@roadrunner.com">nickgier@roadrunner.com</a>"
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:nickgier@roadrunner.com">nickgier@roadrunner.com</a>,
Ted Moffett <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com">starbliss@gmail.com</a><br>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Alberta's Tar Sands and Idaho's Wilderness
Gateway<br>
<br>
><br>
><br>
> --- On Tue, 6/1/10, Ted Moffett <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com">starbliss@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Some argue that it is a matter of national security and economic
necessity to develop and gain access to this huge oil resource that can
reduce oil dependence on other foreign oil sources, while we work on
alternative energy sources. But this is short sighted, given that
climate change is a national security and planetary wide risk that is
increased with continued greenhouse gas emissions, while time is
running out to prevent climate change tipping points that will be
difficult to stop. <br>
><br>
> I wouldn't call it "short sighted", I'd call it "realistic".<br>
><br>
> Here's how my logic goes:<br>
><br>
> 1. We need power. We need it for a lot of
things. Transportation of goods, heating and cooling, powering
factories, running our financial systems, gathering resources, military
defense, etc.<br>
><br>
> 2. It would be better, for a lot of reasons, if we weren't
dependent upon fossil fuel use.<br>
><br>
> 3. There are no alternative energy solutions of sufficient size
that we could turn to today to completely remove our dependence upon
fossil fuels, except nuclear (which the same people that are telling us
to get off of fossil fuels are throwing bureaucratic roadblocks in the
way of).<br>
><br>
> 4. There is no way that we could nix fossil fuel use within 20
years, maybe even 50, even if we had the will to do it.<br>
><br>
> 5. Using fossil fuels produced in politically insane countries
that are politically our enemies is unwise.<br>
><br>
> 6. Given all the above, it would be better (in my opinion) to
switch our fuel usage as much as possible to local fuels or fuels from
politically sane countries in the short term, build up a network of
nuclear power plants to handle our minimum energy needs, switch over to
electric cars, implement a "smart" electric grid, and supplement with
alternative energy as needed and as they are developed.<br>
><br>
> If the right incentives were given at the right times, it might be
the quickest way to remove our fossil fuel dependence. Taxing
everything that uses fuel, which is everything of any use to anybody
pretty much, is economic suicide. I'd rather that the government
implement a Manhattan-style project to bring up nuclear power,
preferably using breeder reactors and the latest technologies, and quit
naively hoping that if we tax the hell out of everybody they will
magically find a better alternative instead of just doing without and
reverting to an agrarian society. Meanwhile, China and India will
continue to burn fossil fuels and (assuming anthropogenic global
warming is as dire as they say it is) we won't have the resources or
ability to handle the disasters as they happen.<br>
><br>
> Anyway, that's my take on it.<br>
><br>
> Paul<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<pre wrap="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a>
=======================================================</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Windows, OSX, or Linux is the same choice as:
McDonald's, Burger King, or a (real) Co-Op.
</pre>
</body>
</html>