Unemployment, and so on

[kandrathe]

2) So you weren't happy with investing in energy companies a few posts back but you want them to invest in energy companies? Oh and your point is fragments as investing in proven techs and investing in R&D are not the same thing. Speculating on unproven R&D vs incremental improvement R&D is high risk but also has a higher reward ceiling too.

The difference is in providing the upfront funding (loan guarantee) for risky capital outlays, as opposed to remunerating companies for proven success. Providing private and public grants to develop new methods will bring better products to market sooner. Even for consumers... I don't need a government loan to help me convert to a geothermal heat pump, just allow my power company to provide the conversion and I'll pay the same price I do now until their investment is returned.

3) I seem to recall you being against tax breaks for individuals that set-up renewable sources that feed into the grid. Perhaps I'm misremembering.

I'm against them when they don't make any sense. Solar is not a good power system for Alaska in winter. Moving California, Nevada, Arizona, and etc. to solar makes sense.

4) It's a bridge, but it's a short bridge that does very little to advance us. It's still a fossil fuel. I'm not saying nuclear is significantly better of a bridge, but at least if you put more behind that bridge and allow the R&D with improving it that has stagnated as well, you are going down a slightly different road.

I'm assuming that they are boiling water generators, so moving from one heat producing combustible with a smokestack to a different one would be an easier retrofit. Cleaner combustion for a decade or two at least.

5) Wasn't there a plan along these lines that was shot down by congress already? I thought it was kind of the same lines as cash for clunkers, but it was to encourage folks to move to more efficient appliances and there was also extra incentives to move to renewable.

It wasn't shot down. In 2008, there was a huge comprehensive overhaul to the tax incentives plan for energy star and renewable energy.

I think much of the legislation is already in place. I just don't think the Government is using the bully pulpit to encourage people to take advantage of the program.

Really? Do you really think that is possible? A strategy that most people can rally toward. Did you really keep a straight face when you said that? Have you not watched how congress has worked the last 20 years (that's all the time I can actually remember).

Yes, and yes. The way congress works is to wait until your side has the advantage, then undo everything the other side did for the past 4 years and implement your own partisan crap. So, I'm saying that for a man who was going to be a "unifier" he needs to step beyond the partisan hot buttons.

Do you think if Obama said "I'm cutting regulations on power lines, investing in pushing for natural gas and nuclear, only investing in renewables that have met blah blah requirements that are decided on these factors so that we know they are proven investments, etc."

First, I'm not proposing cutting regulations on anything, although that might also be a good idea. For power lines, the usual time period to get a single power line approved and built crossing federal land might take 5 or more years. How about we just target slimming down the approval process to a year instead. Once projects are approved, they still require 2 to 4 years to build.

Do you really think someone ELSE isn't going to say "This is crap we need to open the drilling in Alaska or wherever else." Do you REALLY think those battles can be avoided? Do you think if he just ignores them and railroads it through (hello healthcare bill) that it then won't get constantly attacked after the fact?

Someone is going to press for drilling in ANWAR, even if no one in the US used gasoline anymore. Obama should avoid getting into the middle of it, unless a bill came to his desk, and then he should sign, or veto according to his conscience. At the press conferences, if I were Obama, I'd direct my press secretary to indicate my views on ANWAR if that question were asked; something like, there are environmental concerns, and the potential amount of oil recovered would not impact domestic supply sufficient to offset our other concerns. It needs to be framed simply as a risk/reward equation, where for Obama, the risk is greater than the reward. So, no, don't ramrod things through Congress. Build a bipartisan approach that few are willing to stand against. JFK inspired us to go to a dead rock in space, and recover very little except the technology to get there and back again.

You the man who just recently said that are very few politicians who aren't self serving, are trying to make a point that this is what should happen? That a plan can be created that isn't going to be attacked and potentially derailed.

I'm thinking of a leader, like JFK, or Reagan, who can avoid the pitfalls of partisanship, inspire the people with a solid vision, then get it done. For a president who wants to get re-elected, being a good, or great leader is also self-serving. I'm just asking him to stand up and be that leader, and if not, then step aside and let someone into the office who will make a difference.

An example of Obama, the not so good leader, is his recent proposed Jobs bill. His guy in the Senate, Harry Reid, didn't even go to bat for it within the Democratic ranks. It was an example of the worst of partisan politics, and a probably merely a cynical campaigning stunt meant to further the partisan divide and heat up the Democrat base.