The only Green Way out….

All the Environmentalist and Economists and Academics should “make” the federal and state governments tax the hell out of energy; especially imported gasoline.

This is the only way out. Rebates/subsidies, interest group fights, me-too politics will not solve this problem. Just tax the hell out of Energy and consumption.

Yeah that would be smart, tax energy before there is any alternative. Use your head. The MTA is going broke and is so dysfunctional that it’s a joke. I can’t get a train on the weekends into Boston from my house in Hyde Park, there is not service. It stops after 6 or 7 at night. If I want to go out I drive. I don’t go out however, but if I did this would be a problem.

We don’t import gasoline, we refine it here.
Liylia it’s a good idea if your going to get up on the soap box to understand the issues and have little more clarity.

What about the small bakery that has small fleet of delivery tucks, are you going to tax them out of business?

The next time you need a plumber think about what a plan that your advocating would do to the high prices they charge.

We can’t tax our way into being ‘green’ whatever that means. I’m all for a reasonable gas tax but what your advocating is more destructive to the local economy than anything else. But hey it would work on a perverse level, less people would be driving, working and consuming as they would be out of work.

Lilya Using Her Head… Yes, tax Energy, tax, tax, tax

For three reason:

a) Wealthier people consume per capita more BTU than poor people

b) We don’t have any money to import more. Every year 0.6 – 0.72 trillion of our wealth that we don’t have goes outside. Imagine China says no more lending for importing oil; just IMF does to 120 countries.

c) We did not say, collect more taxes on oil and burn the money in your fire place…Daaaaaa. We can build subway systems and commuter rails in USA (on a lucky day); but we have to import the subway cars and trolleys from Spain. Daaaaa, again!!

d) Smoking is Bad advertisement never worked against Marlboro’s Camel. Make a pack $10.00 each and see how many people are quiting.

e) 1 gal of Gasoline in Greece = $6.20
1 gal of Gasoline in USA = $1.80
Average wage in Greece can buy gasoline = 315 gal
Average wage in Greece can buy gasoline = 2131 gal

I’m all for energy reform. Right now we are pumping too much money into oil subsidies, but I worry about creating a green bubble by pumping too much money into green initiatives. What initiatives should be taken to prevent a green bubble?

Nothing is going to work unless there is a better way to make them more affordable. The money to retro fit houses is for lower income, and I would guess the reason the sale of priuses dropped so much was not the price of gas but rather the price of the car. People can’t afford it in this climate.

Why not a Manhattan project to develop and deploy pebble bed nuclear? It is sufficiently safe for in-city deployment, and, if thorium were developed as a fuel, would even be safe for individual residence heating.

We have to completely change the way we run our Commuter Buses/Trains (e.g. MBTA). It can’t be run “For Profit” right from the first day, ofcourse once the infrastructure and services are in place the Railways, Subways and Buses DO GENERATE money but not from the day they are conceieved (e.g. Indian Railways which is running on Profit)

If I live in Burlington and want to commute to Boston for work I have no way but to drive (hence burn more oil per capita) where as MBTA runs an Express Bus (Service No. 351) from Boston to Burlington (opposite direction) and it RUNS EMPTY (in my guess) or runs as a Normal Service (number 350) which is less benefecial to most of the people during commute times.

Why not run the 351 eiter way??? Just an example!!

Why not have highspeed trains/Buses (more frequently) from NH to Boston rather than block the 93 all the way to Qunicy????

Btw, Trains are the MOST Energy Effecient Transportations Systems!

God Bless America!!

I am disappointed that the issue of “Peak Oil” has not been discussed by your guests as I’m sure that they are well aware of its relevance and serious implications.
Perhaps this would be a suitable subject for a future program.

People in Greece do not have to drive as far as people in Utah and Montana to get to work.

The rich can afford it, Europe has a good public transportation system, in most countries, that is heavily subsidized. Making knee jerk comments without looking at this from a rational point of view is not going to get anyone anywhere. You can’t tax people into oblivion and you can’t compare Europe to this country.

We do not have a real public transportation sysytem.
I live in Boston and it’s awful, it dysfunctional and over priced and does not work for people like myself who live on the out skirts of the city. I live on a commutator rail line but never use it because it’s over to expensive for the three stops to downtown and it the schedule is sporadic and does not run in the evening or weekends. If they made this affordable and user friendly I would use it all the time. They have these huge outdated diesel engines pulling 4 cars, give me a break these things pollute a lot more than cars.

We also need to look in different directions such as our Oceans. If we can build dams that use water movement, why cant we build plants that use the natural motion of the Ocean? or channeling the power of the Ocean in a usable fashion to create power. Using the same technology
as wind turbines.

I am 26 yr old girl petite 120 lbs.

Everytime I want to see a movie, I drive my Hummer 4800 lbs to about 45 miles away, because the theater seats in my favorite Showcase is more comfortable. Carrying around about 40 lbs of metal mass on wheels for each pound of little Me. Why? Because gasoline is very cheap.

If a gallon of gasoline were to cost $8.00 and public transportation only 25 cents, I would have seen the same movie here in town.

Yeah sure, green energy, a self help book, positive thinking, spending, legalising drugs, Dr. Phil, Oprah, Fox news and a hookah smoking caterpillar are all solutions to our economic crisis.

The coming depression will itself automatically solve the energy crisis, fewer people using fewer cars and air conditioning will need less energy, investing in green energy is an exercise in wasteful spending. As the oil prices sink, investment in green tech is a waste of time and energy and resources.

Rich people don’t create jobs, the government does, and as population increases, more people need more things. We can not have an economy that is based on consumption while we talk about conserving the resources and the earth.

Yes, green technology is crucial. But the true cost of oil (much of which is from foreign sources) MUST include the cost, in lives and treasure, and of military activities that too often ensue. Would we be so often at odds with oil-rich countries in the Mideast if we weren’t buying? Would they hate us if we weren’t there? As the mother of a member of the military, I see human suffering (theirs and ours) as part of “price per barrel” of foreign oil. How many bodies? How many ruined families? How much military expense? Oil must be replaced because it is an addiction that WAY TOO EXPENSIVE, even if the APPARENT price is $40/barrel!

> I am 26 yr old girl petite 120 lbs.

> Everytime I want to see a movie, I drive my Hummer
> 4800 lbs to about 45 miles away, because the theater
> seats in my favorite Showcase is more comfortable.
> Carrying around about 40 lbs of metal mass on wheels
> for each pound of little Me.

You, my dear, are part of the problem. In a society that can afford excess, responsibility for energy consumption begins with people (aka YOU). This conservative viewpoint may get lambasted in this particular forum, but I believe that each person must understand the impact they have to the broader system and learn to adjust their lifestyle if they expect to have any kind of significant result. The “so just tax me” line is really a weak one.

Right on Lilya; had the taxing begun in 1973as it should have the idiotic suburbanization of the US would have ceased and the inane society based on greed and conspicuous consumption would have been greatly constrained. The lunacy of believing that the best policy for the US and the rest of the world is a new WAR to create a green economy so we can all get back to gobbling up the few remaining resources left on spaceship Earth illustrates the debased thought processes of humans. Why can so few of the smart apes recognize the trap they are laying for the future of the Earth with a human population probably 3 to 6 times rational numbers headed exponentially up to 9 to 10 times by mid century? The economic policies of “growth” are destroying the Earth’s capability to support life; when are we going to wake up and recognize that “stasis” is the only rational policy? I’ll not await the realization with bated breath. I am thankful that I am closer to 70 than 60; however, I am truly aggrieved for the young humans and the few remaining animal species on Earth as I foresee no happy future for them because of the unmitigated greed of vast numbers of humans.

You want a green economy stop human reproduction until there are 1-2 billion tops. All other approaches are simply delaying tactics until the Earth likely reduces human populations to a few hundred million around the turn of this century.

I agree that raising gasoline prices through taxation would go a long way toward reducing oil consumption and getting people into more efficient cars. But the alternative, raising the CAFE standards, could accomplish the same thing – the barrier being an army of lobbyists and feckless politicians.

The larger issue is whether or not the public can wake up to how important it is for the country to get off of foreign oil and to cut greenhouse gas emissions. What also needs to be emphasized is that it is just as important to reduce and ultimately eliminate our use of coal for generating electricity. While we need to address meeting our energy needs and cutting greenhouse gas emissions in a comprehensive fashion, I believe that conservation of electricity should be pushed hard because it would actually save us money in the near term (see Feb 09 issue of National Geographic).

The dumbest thing we’ve done as a nation is not put more money into research on green energy over the last 30 years. If we had spent a little bit more, we’d have a lot more solutions available now. Still, many experts who have looked at this problem believe we can fix the problem without much sacrifice.

We must fix this problem, as the cost to our kids of making less than a full-hearted effort will be far greater and last far longer.

I believe that new energy technology will help fix our broken economy. Our government should have given money to Tesla Motors instead of GM. Companies like this are the GM’s of the future. More importantly we need to diversify our energy infrastructure to support our car culture. We will need a combination of nuclear, wind, solar, etc. and reduced energy consumption in our homes and buildings. Doing this requires research and development from our engineers, scientists, and funding from our government to help entrepreneurs build these new companies. These are the jobs of our future and our children.

The gentleman who compared the internet to the energy market made a good point. The internet was dynamic, but the offshoots of the internet…the thousands of lesser know software/technology businesses that grew out of it was fantastic. That is the promise of green energy, the obvious goal is to develop new clean energy. But the new technologies and businesses that grow out of that development will be the real power that creates a new economy, jobs and era in energy.

Dear On Point Producers, et al,

I listened with half-rapt attention to your “Green Way Out” program just now. How frustrating to be trapped mute (our local outlet, Spokane Public Radio, broadcasts it after it ends).

I wanted to say ( I will now) that there is serious dispute over the material efficacy of many “green-tech” solutions. For example, I am reading about the “net energy cost” of producing and using photo-voltaic solar panels and associated battery-storage systems. According to the sources I’m reading, these technologies do not, and probably will not, “pencil out” with respect to their net energy (and other resource) intake/output ratios.

Get this important example, please: The manufacture, distribution & installation of PV solar panels uses as much (or more) “energy unit input” as can be expected to be generated (output) in its working lifetime. In terms of finite (limited) resources this renders such technology – unsustainable. This and many other technologies are economic in “dollar cost” only, and then only when conventional energy source prices have risen to eclipse dollar costs at the earlier time of manufacture.

In terms of “net resource cost”, PV solar and many other current alternative energy schemes are “net zero” or worse (“energy sinks”). They use at least as much more finite resources as they “save”. Environmentally (think of their cost a generation or two in the future) they appear to be bogus endeavors. This but one example of the deep dilemma we are confronting as “peak oil” and atmospheric destabilization converge on the economic and environmental planet.

So far, one suspects, these alternative energy technologies will be shown to have been good mainly for the stock portfolios of their promoters and investors. Yes, “Green Jobs” and paychecks will have been had, and powerful politics will have been played, but the real environmental toll will account these attempts at sustainability to have been shell games, wishful Ponzi schemes, yet again.

The boogiemen in all this are hidden costs and unintended consequences. And personal profit at the expense of all others must always be suspected. The only likely helpful strategy is to use less of everything. Dollars, in the industrial world, must necessarily be seen as energy. If they are spent to consume any manufactured goods they are being used to convert finite resources ultimately into trash. This is not a comforting thought. Agree?

Your guest failed to mention that the 2010 Toyota Prius and the 2010 Honda Insight are coming out fairly soon. Many have been waiting for the past year. Please don’t talk about hybrids like it’s some fad that’s gone out of style. I, myself, have been waiting years for the next-generation Prius to come out.

Anyone reading my 1:20 pm post above, who is interested enough, and not afraid of confronting, our society’s (and humanity’s) reluctance to investigate “unpleasant” information, will be well served by going to the rather politically-incorrectly named website: http://www.dieoff.org. From there one might be further induced to link to the equally dubiously named site: http://www.warSocialism. There, you’ll find many profoundly mind altering essays, articles, and links on the subject of the decline of fossil fuel energy and the continuation of human domination of the planet – a subject that has come to be discussed under the heading: “Peak Oil”.

Especial recommendation is made for the essay “Energy and Human Evolution”, by anthropologist, David Price. See also “Five Fundamental Errors”, by site founder Jay Hanson, a very bright, focused, retired computer programmer. Thoughtful readers may absorb some arresting “Aha!’”s on ENERGY, MONEY, POLITICS, HUMAN PSYCHOLOGY, and other fields. If you cannot intellectually (emotionally) deal with the fundamental LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS you will want to skip this material. None of this is likely to be taught in your church’s Sunday school, or be seriously discussed by either Rush Limbaugh or President Obama.

Most of what is being offered for public consideration by our putative “Leaders” (politicians), corporate Press Relators, and Mainstream Media governors, “spiritual” leaders, and tank-thinkers amounts – as predictable as it is unfortunate – to the latest version of re-arranging the Titanic’s deck chairs – distractively comforting, but, ultimately, absolutely unproductive.

Might I be excused for thinking this program’s listeners, producers, underwriters, might find any of this suitable fare – even for unusually curious audiences?

Dan Treecraft
Spokane, WA

Tom, producers, staff, readers, listeners, et al,

Prior to his death nearly 100 years ago, the eminently brilliant American psychologist and philosopher, William James, observed:

“The most significant characteristic of modern civilization is the sacrifice of the future to the present, and all the power and genius of science is prostituted to this purpose”.

One can argue over the degree of hyperbole in the latter (conjunctive) assertion, but the statement stands as a valid fundamental appraisal of the way Americans lived then, and the way we continue to live today. The only significant change is in the technical content of our contemporary delusions.

No wonder you would have a venture capitalist on the show. If he can scare us into his plan he stands to make billions, whereas we stand to pay very high prices for EVERYTHING! Cap and trade or tap and tax or forced compliance still means we will pay big time. The poor will become poorer and in need of more assistance. I am all for getting out of the middle-east and off oil. But!!! will going green solve the problem? If this technology is so promising, why force it on us? If it is so great, then I will buy into it. So far, this has been my experience with going green.
* I built a very energy efficient home, energy saving items everywhere. All electric, monthly bill 120.00. Guess what? The Electric company raises it’s rates.
* Considered solar panels. Very expensive. I would never recover my cost, even with Govt. tax help.
* Hybrid car. $30,000 plus price tag. Repairs cost more. Accidents will nearly total the car. A 25mph fender bender did. A friend has a 10 year old truck he has modified, low emissions, 59 mpg.
* If you go electric, electricity will go up.
* Solar needs large areas of land, Wind power takes up alot of space. I wonder how many solar/wind gizmos it would take to equal one nuclear plant.

We have ran out of industries in this country. Our country milked the housing and banking for all it was worth to fuel our economy and pop it is gone. Alternative energy ideas has been around for decades, I hope it turns out to be the goose that lays the golden egg.

I am 26 yr old girl petite 120 lbs.

If a gallon of gasoline were to cost $8.00 and public transportation only 25 cents, I would have seen the same movie here in town.

Are you kidding me? You talk all this environmental stuff and you drive a Hummer! Hypocrite.

We can go back to horse and buggies and whale oil lamps…
opps you can’t kill whales anymore. How about candle light.

It is comforting to see someone else looking squarely at the difficulties lying ahead. I don’t need to go to the Peak Oil sites to understand, I think. There is a fair chance we will, as a species, fail. We will certainly fail if we do not gather ourselves and try this, that, and the other.
No, I don’t think solar panels are likely to end up the best technology, but they may be, and they are a way station. But I tend to think the social and political instability of a threatened planet, that being beyond science to address, will pose a greater threat. If “a few hundred thousand” remained, would there be enough brainiacs, even if cloned or genetically programmed, to keep up the advanced systems needed to survive a beseiged environment? And wouldn’t one of them figure a way to “go postal” on the whole remaining few? The more humans earth can sustain, the better we are, in terms of diversity, I think.

I am 26 yr old girl petite 120 lbs.

This Lilya.

Was trying to make a “point”. Of course, I hate Hummers and Guys with Hummers. I am a Prius owner and get 60+ miles to a gallon and whenever I see a red light stop giving gas and drive the people behind me crazy.

Way to stir people up, Lilya. Good for you.

I installed a solar water heater system on our house in Hawaii which we rent out. The tenants now pocket $60 a house in lower electricity bills. What do I get? Good feeling from reducing fuel consumption, a tax credit to help pay for it, and an upgrade for our house.

With respect to the TOTAL cost of oil, Janet B is right: America’s strategic interest in the Middle East — an unimpeded flow of oil to the global energy market — costs us diplomatically and militarily. When we pull out of Iraq the U.S. Navy will remain in the region to prevent disruption to maritime transport of oil to Asia, Europe, and the Western Hemisphere. At the core of Muslim enmity of America is our military presence, particularly in Saudi Arabia and Iraq, home to some of Islam’s most holy sites. When we reduce our oil dependency, our strategic interest (and presence) in the Middle East will diminish.

On Point is usually such a thought provoking and interesting program – today, not so much. The guests were a prominent environmental activist and a venture capitalist, both with a vested interest in making the case for the veracity of a “green economy”. Not a single caller with even a mildly skeptical comment. I felt like I was listening to a “green economy” infomercial.

How can we expect to stimulate the national economy through disincentives (cap and trade)? What we are inviting is further offshoring of manufacturing jobs – the backbone of our economy. One shining example cited in the program was the flat energy consumption of California over the past twenty years. One significant reason is that onerous California regulation has chased much of their manufacturing out of state. I live in Michigan, the leading state in the union for reduction of carbon emissions in 2008. How many people would interpret that as a sign of strength?

Fred Krupp mentioned the success of the cap and trade system used to curb sulphur dioxide emissions. Two big differences between SO2 and CO2 are first, that SO2 is fairly easily regulated since it is mainly emitted from coal-burning power plants – a point source emission that can be much more readily controlled than CO2 which is emitted from a vast array of industrial, domestic and natural sources. Second, the “payback” of SO2 reduction can be seen almost immediately as a reduction in acid rain, where the effect of CO2 reduction may not be felt for decades or even centuries.

One final thought – with the exception of some of the comments here, very little was said about the transportation sector – it seems like all the “green economy” talk about is wind and solar electricity production. The way we move our goods (and bodies) around is much less efficient than the way we generate electricity, and even though the solution is more difficult, the benefit in investing in improvements to the transportation sector would yield greater returns.

As always, I look forward to tuning in to tomorrow’s program.

Dan I made a comment about the bad state of public transportation in Boston. I live near a rail line but I don’t use it. To expensive and it does not run often.
It is also using out dated diesel engines that pollute a hell of of lot more than cars. It’s all very well to make statements about raising the price of gas to European levels, but to do so without anything to take it’s place is madness. Europe has a well developed and supplemented public transport system.

I have been to Japan which also has a very good public transportation system, the down side, it’s very very expensive. To take the train from the airport to Tokyo cost over $100 per person and this was about 8 years ago. The subway is great but again it’s not cheap, about $4 for an average ride. The costs go up depending on how far you go. Japan is a small country. What do the environmental activist have as a solution to people who live in rural areas where there is no public transportation. Our whole country since after WW2 has been geared towards the car. Suburbs and sprawl and to just come up and say tax gas and energy is not a solution.

There was a program on recently called Radio Boston on this subject in which this caller claimed to have spent over 100k on putting on state of the art insulation.
Well do the math, even if oil (this persons primary heat source) was double what it is today this homeowner would spend maybe $3000 a season on the high end. If you spent this much you would never get your money back in savings anytime soon. In fact if your 50 or older it would not happen in your life time. This is nuts, this man could afford to waste $100,000 plus on his home to save about 40% to 50% on his heating bill. He could have done a blow in type of insulation for a fraction of the price but wanted be ‘green’, real green. It reminds of the Middle Ages when the rich would buy indulgences from the Church so that they could have their place in heaven.

It cost me about $2500 to heat my house in cold winter. Sometimes it’s less. If I did this I would save $1000 maybe a little more per season. It would take 100 years to realize any financial benefit. There is something wrong with this picture.

Way to stir people up, Lilya. Good for you.
Posted by Fred, on March 17th, 2009 at 8:02 pm EDT

Excuse Moi

When was the last time you heard that we are in the Middle East for Oil. Nooooooooooo. Oil futures market is so dynamic and international nobody can control the darn thing. Oil producing countries are usually more capitalistic and internationally hedged, nobody can change that, either.

When it comes to the excuse of being in the Middle East for “Oil”….. Nooooooooo, Noooooooo, Nooooooooo.

We are sheding blood over there in order to “protect” our Allies (as Condi have said 345 thousand times).

The problem is she has no idea about the difference between the plural Allies and singular Ally.

Additionally all countries in that region “Love” and adore America and our People, etc. It is our misguided and mislead (by a dozen people with dual passports) “foreign” policy that they hate.

Fred wrote: “At the core of Muslim enmity of America is our military presence, particularly in Saudi Arabia and Iraq, home to some of Islam’s most holy sites.”

-

While I agree with you that we need to pull out of middle-east and dependence on foreign oil is problematic, I’m not sure that there’s unanimity among the Muslim world about your statement above, and whether it really is, as you say, “at the core of Muslim enmity.” Your statement also assumes that Muslims are a monolithic community (which is true in certain cases, like the Danish cartoons controversy).

It was OBL who mentioned the above for the first time (“Saudi Arabia is a holy site and US troops shouldn’t be there” – though American troops had been in SA for many years before Osama came up with that reason) and his reason for attacking American interests. If you know of Muslim leaders of other countries who have expressed the same sentiment, please share some links.
I’ve read about Iraqis wanting American troops out of their country, but not for the reason you cited above (holy sites) but because of sovereignty of their country.

And what’s the logic behind American troops and Muslim holy sites? Does that mean Saudi Arabia and Iraq can’t have any troops of their own? Or is it just American troops? How about Muslim American soldiers? Can American troops never go into Saudi Arabia or Iraq even if it is for some humanitarian mission? And who decides that? Osama Bin Laden?
*rolling my eyes*

I share your dislike of American hegemony, but it doesn’t lead me to crazy logic like yours which is not rooted in factual analysis or sound logic.

Ultimately, the only environmentally responsible action is suicide. Anything less shows a lack of commitment and reveals the insincerity of the speaker.