I love my Barack but...

[Bread and Circus]

I have to say that I firmly believe the most important economic thing we can do as a nation is convert universally to electric vehicles (plug-in hybrids first then electric only thereafter, maybe to be followed up by hydrogen fuel cell or some other non-fossil fuel technology). The reasons for this are multi-fold, running the gamut from climate change and national security to quality of life and shared prosperity. There's no other thing that will have more of a ripple effect throughout all of the things that threaten my children's and potential grandchildren's future. Yours as well. Almost everything else by comparison, except perhaps fealty to the Constitution, is a shell game. Yes, there are many social issues that are important and lack of Universal Health Coverage is a separate issue, but the economy is the cornerstone of society and effects everyone in nearly every facet of their life.

So, I have to say neither Clinton nor Obama talk about it enough. I can't blame them too much because it would be politically dangerous for them to come off sounding like "Captain Moonbeam". After all, it's hard for people to relate to a technological advancement as being so important to nearly every aspect of their life. Such talk might even be off-putting here on DU, amongst many truly enlightened folks.

However, as much as I dislike George Bush and the vast RW's stranglehold on our country, they are the by-products of a fossil-fuel driven society. Just getting rid of them and shifting the balance of power slightly to the left for 4 or 8 years will mean nothing if we don't hack at the root of our problems. The internal combustion engine is that root. It's highly inefficient, dangerous, and enslaves us all.

The first and foremost thing we need to do is individually and collectively conserve: screw in CFL's, switch off the lights we don't need, turn the thermostat down, go easy on the air conditioning, and drive far, far less (take a bus, bike to work, walk). The industrial sector has to play its part in conserving as well. However, there's a theoretical and practical limit to that. But even then, a lot of that only addresses part of the problem. Because no matter how little we drive, we are still burning oil and this in turn keeps all of the social, economic, and political forces in place that is screwing everything over.

The only thing that could radically and effectively change the dynamic are electric cars. For starters, prototypic electric vehicles are insanely fuel efficient (equivalent to 100+ mpg). But more than that, the switch from fossil fuel as being the energy medium for transportation to electricity changes the whole ballgame. The main reason for this is that electricity can be had in many different ways: wind, solar, hydro, nuclear, coal, biomass, etc. This does several things domestically. One, it will drive the value of of many non-fossil fuel energy sources up. Two, it means we have the capacity to generate nearly all of our own energy. It's the only real way to "get off foreign oil". Without electric transportation, proposing such a thing is purely nonsense. Three, control of emissions will be centralized at the point of electricity production which lends itself to better procedures for reduction, filtration, or sequestration. Fourth, it will help "democratize energy", especially if the the mechanics of our electrical grid are changed so that it is bi-directional.

A lot of what holds us back is "battery technology" although in the next 5 years we are likely to see the first large scale run of plug-in hybrids. GM is "on board" with the Chevy Volt but at $40,000 it still likely to be a niche car. I know Toyota is now maneuvering to bring to fruition plug-in hybrids to the market. That is a good thing. Unfortunately, our Government seems to be light years behind in terms of rhetoric and material support. Even Al Gore recognizes the government is beyond the private sector.

This is sad and unacceptable. I hope that Obama, in his forward thinking, embraces and emphasizes the importance of electric transportation. It won't be enough to just "change the tone in Washington", bring the troops home in Iraq, and create a more ubiquitous subsidized health insurance system. Same goes for Hillary. We need to shift from electric vehicles as being "something we need to look into" to "something we must do on a universal scale within the next 15 years". I will grant both give some mention, but the emphasis is just not nearly enough.

This post is not intended to disparage Barack or Hillary Clinton, they are both far ahead of the GOP on this. However, I just want to remind myself, and others, of the issues that are most important. So, again I want to say I love my Barack but I hope that whether he or Clinton wins the nomination, they do everything in their power to advance the sorts of technological achievements we need to fundamentally shift away from a fossil fuel based society.

We may now return to our bickering about flag pins, Pastorgation, sniper fire, and testicular fortitude. :)

[lordsummerisle]

1. Thanks, great post n/t

[FrenchieCat]

2. Obama was mentioning plug in Hybrids and such

in one of his stump speeches, that I listened to a couple of days ago.

[boston bean]

3. Obama's got it all covered. nt

[rug]

4. Yes, he has a detailed three point program.

1. Hybrids

2. Are

3. Good.

[crankychatter]

26. He's also mentioned replacing the internal combustion engine

...I think I can work with a guy like that

Remember, it was two American Bicycle Mechanics that solved the multi-millenia old riddle of human flight.

yes, we can.

[DMorgan]

5. One issue posts like this bore me to death!

People should expand their world view, and realize that lecturing this progressive choir about alternative auto power is pointless, and very uninformed. By the way, how does one produce enough electric power without fossil fuels to produce electricity?

Myopic posts like this are really boring. Let's get off the soapbox and back into school and learn that complex problems NEVER have simplistic solutions as the OP would like.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[crankychatter]

27. If moral and intellectual posturing equalled moral and intellectual superiority...

...you'd be mother theresa and albert fucking einstein

Instead, you're sitting on an obscure website making insufferably boorish and abusive comments.

[MojoMojoMojo]

6. The Hybrid was developed under a Clinton Admin program.But US automakers

didnt pursue marketing it.
Yeah Bill

[davidpdx]

8. The energy problem is a complex issue

and I as much as you want to see the issue solved.

I'll tell you a story of something that happened about a month ago or so. I am teaching English as a second language here in Korea. Last term I picked up a couple of extra hours working at a writing lab. One of the students was writing a presentation on renewable energy. We went over his paper and I was quite impressed with it. I looked him in the eye and told him to get to work on an alternative forms of energy because we can't wait much longer.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

9. Gosh - why would you think THAT is important.... you must be in the wrong forum - lol!

Just kidding, of course.

[TheDudeAbides]

10. I've been to three Clinton speeches; electric vehicles are a major portion; especially Bill's

Great post!

[bhikkhu]

11. I agree with you, but the problems are massive

For one, the existing grid is projected to fall short soon even without the need to power transportation.

Another problem is electricity generation itself. Hydro has been stable for many years and will remain so. NG is projected to decline - no one with sense is building any more NG power generation. Solar and wind are both very slow movers - to some extent the rise in energy costs frustrated efforts to put alternative infrastructures in place. Coal is the only big mover, and nuclear is poised for a comeback. Is that what we want?

I am disappointed by both of the candidates on energy issues myself, but because conservation and a fundamental change in lifestyle is the only approach to a real solution, and no one is going to suggest it. I am inclined to think of electric cars as a sideshow, though perhaps an expensive step in the right direction.

[Bread and Circus]

15. There's a fork in the road, either we keep doing what we have for the last 100 years...

and go down the same problematic road, or we do something different.

I see no way out of a myriad of economic and security problems without transitioning to electric vehicles.

The energy efficiency of electric vehicles vs internal combution engine vehicles is insane.

As to how we can get energy if not from oil, that's been ran through quite a bit in the energy and environment forums. It won't be easy and it will require herculean effort to restructure. But, if we really want to work toward real solutions, it's going to take a herculean effort of one kind or another.

Now, I might be all wrong about this but I think that the whole littany of "getting off foreign oil, not fighting wars for oil, energy independence, and fighting climate change" is 100% smoke and mirrors unless we radically change transportation as we know it.

If there's a better foundational solution than electric cars, I'd love someone here to spell it out.

I'm not an engineer nor an economist so I'm all ears to people who are expert in this area.

However, what fantasy is it that we will "get off foreign oil" when we import twice as much oil as we produce? What magic will we use to "fight climate change" if we are still burning fossil fuel in our cars?

United States prosperity has been built on cheap oil. Cheap oil is gone for good as long as populace nations like China, India, and other places continue to industrialize. We may be already facing Peak Oil production and refinement and $8 to $10 gallon gas is not absolutely out of the question.

People don't realize that gas prices like that will serve as an earth shaker to our Country no matter what. It will effect the price of nearly everything and exacerbate the peril of those that live on the margin.

[bhikkhu]

23. Doing what we have been is not even an option

As anyone who is choosing between food or fuel now is agreeing, likely against their will.

The better foundational solution is an economy based around rail transport of commodities (much more efficient than anything but shipping over water) and foot and bicycle transport for the majority of personal travel. It will be a long transition, and electric cars may be a part of the transition, but that is the one solution.

On one point - electric cars do use energy more efficiently, but chances are that energy they are using was generated with all kinds of waste and pollution. One of the problems again is that we would need more energy production to fuel electric transportation and the only current ways to do that are to burn coal or build more nuclear plants. Both are bad choices, and there is no significant electric transportation solution without them.

Lifestyles and expectations must change.

[pdxmom]

12. My husband has a full electric conversion that he uses for work. It's

going to take a lot more than battery technology. Right now, the costs for these are pretty astronomical, and while it's a great thing, it's more a hobbiest vehicle than something that is mass marketable.

The battery technology is only one thing that is holding the electrics back. You also have to change the infrastructure, putting in charging stations that are easily accessible. We get about 20 miles out of a charge, which happens to be enough to get from our house to downtown Portland, where there are a couple of charging centers. But the practicality is limited.

This is something that we must have strong and forceful leadership to get moving. Already, the car companies are trying to quietly push back against the hybrids and electrics. They're looking for other possibilities. They killed the electric car once, and they will have to be dragged kicking and screaming to get back in that direction.

[Bread and Circus]

14. I applaud your Husband's efforts and I'm sure you've both read about the Chevy Volt.

40 miles on a charge is a start and most people drive 40miles or less per day, so most people can charge overnight at home with such a vehicle. Infrastructure changes are needed, but not immediately as plug-in hybrids will be a bridge solution.

[StevieM]

13. I agree! It's very important that we switch to electric cars and then to hydrogen fuel cells.

And as a Clinton supporter I'll admit that she hasn't been as friendly towards nuclear power as she should be, especially since nuclear power can be used, in the future, to create hydrogen. But we definitely need to do more to move away from the internal combustible engine.

Steve

[anigbrowl]

16. I definitely don't want a combustible engine

sorry, couldn't help giggling at the mental image.

[boppers]

17. So what, a major giveaway to automakers?

Tax breaks like the Arizona boondoggle? (People were buying Hummers, adding cheap "conversion kits", and never using the kits). More X-prize competitions? http://www.progressiveautoxprize.org/

[hfojvt]

18. maybe we could start

with electric lawnmowers. Doubtless not nearly the gas consumption of automobiles but probably more inefficient and pollution producing (not to mention noise pollution).
I bought one a few years ago, and do regret not getting a cordless (they were out of stock at the time) but it is nicer than fighting with my gas powered mower to start and also hauling a jug of gasoline on my bicycle was never very fun.
If they sell more electric mowers, it would be a way to work on the battery technology. I bought mine, ironically, from Amazon.com
http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=electric+mower&tag=googhydr-20&index=aps&hvadid=1104258101&ref=pd_sl_9h03qna766_b

[dkf]

19. From MTP today:

Well, you know, I, I think that if we decided right now that we were going to make the kind of investment I've proposed--$150 billion over 10 years--then I think at the end of the decade we could have a auto industry that has significantly reduced our consumption of oil by as much as 35, 40 percent. And the technologies exist right now for plug-in hybrids. You know, we should continue to investigate the possibilities of electric cars. The problem is is that we have not been serious about it, and Detroit ended up making investments in SUVs and large trucks because that's where they perceived a competitive advantage and that's where they felt they could make the most profit. I think it was a mistake for them not to plan earlier. Now we're seeing a huge growth in fuel-efficient cars that is benefitting the Japanese automakers, and Detroit is getting pounded some more. And I think that we can make those cars here in the United States. By the way, that's going to be our expert market over the future. China already has higher fuel efficiency standards than we do. If we want to compete for those markets, then we're going to have to invest in technology. The government can help, but the automakers have to make some changes. And I didn't say that just in front of environmental groups, I went to Detroit and said it in front of the automakers. That's the kind of truth telling we need from the next president.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24445166/page/3/

[rodeodance]

20. O. is finally catching up to Hillary. She has been talking about her

comprehensive green jobs creating plan for months.


I posted here on DU a few weeks ago. Ck her website.


O is a copycat

[dkf]

24. Promising to break the OPEC cartel is not promoting being green.

Sorry.

[TheDudeAbides]

21. $10,000 credit for purchase of hybrid cars

Hillary Clinton's plan includes a $10,000 credit for purchasing a hybrid car.

In Bill's stump speech, he spends about 5 minutes talking about new technologies
for hybrid cars, assistance to American car manufacturers to help them transition
to fuel efficient cars, etc.

Her plan also creates jobs that will never leave the US; jobs to convert our houses,
business, etc to solar, wind and more efficient technologies funded by government programs.
The strategy is to send a signal to oil companies, OPEC, etc that the US will no longer be
100% at their mercy, while at the same time, we will reduce our carbon footprint.

Barack Obama takes more money from oil executives than any candidate that has been in
this race (democratic or republican). Why do you think he rarely talks about the types of
energy programs mentioned in this thread? Why is Obama the oil candidate?
I'll give you a hint: African oil.

Oil companies are counting on Obama to gain the trust of African countries in order to
push China out of Africa so that American oil companies can gain influence (control?) of
African oil resources. Same script as middle east...Bush/Cheney replaced by Obama/Soros/Odinga/Brezinski.

When are we going to leave other countries alone and focus on schools, energy conservation, etc here????

[gateley]

22. I haven't read all the posts here,

but essentially I agree with the OP.

It's been frustrating to me that the talk is of hybrids and getting better mpg by the year 2015, or whatever they're saying.

Tesla's first roadster is hitting the streets this month. Yes, it's a $100,000 car but I think their marketing and business strategies are spot on. Catch peoples' attention with such a beautiful vehicle, which gets about 200 miles per charge, 0-60 mph in under 4 seconds, and they've mostly been purchased by high profile people. A good initial step in showing people that electric CAN work, and work well. Their next step, with the revenue, is to manufacture a sedan (by 2010, I think) which is still pricey, but more affordable - $40,000+ range, I think. Next, a more affordable model for the rest of us.

I know Biden introduced (and got approval) for funding into R&D of lithium ion batteries. That, and other types of alternative energy seem to be getting more funding these days, so we're headed in the right direction.

And if there is a better alternative than electric, bring it on!

I'm with Steve (Hillary supporter) - bottom line is we have to move past the internal combustion engine.

[casus belli]

25. You need to watch "Who killed the electric car?"

If you haven't already seen it. This technology (the GM EV1) came and went in the mid 90's in California as an industry reaction to the zero-omissions legislation being proposed. The legislation eventually died under questionable circumstances, and the industry assasinated their own ground-breaking innovation for a plethora of reasons, none related to complications with the technology. It's a very interesting watch.

[Bread and Circus]

28. I did, it's an excellent movie.