Skip to main content

View Diary: Green diary rescue: Will a clean energy standard be a good thing? (67 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Great roundup Meteor Blades (13+ / 0-)

    Thank you.

    Lets hope this happens:

    Oilsands to be black-listed by the EU?

    European Union governments may begin talks in the coming months on a proposal to promote greener fuels, potentially black-listing fuels whose production is more polluting, according to Europe’s climate chief.

    EU Climate Change Commissioner Connie Hedegaard said default emission values for fuel derived from tar sands and oil shale — widespread in Canada and Estonia — will be peer reviewed and included in the proposal.

    The European Commission initially proposed last year that tar sands be ascribed a greenhouse gas value of 107 grams per megajoule of fuel — making clear to buyers that it had far greater environmental impact than average crude oil at 87.1 grams.

    But the European Union later appeared to back down on the issue, putting commerce ahead of a strategy to curb greenhouse gases from transport fuels by 6 percent this decade.

    The inclusion of default values for shale oil — whose use EU member state Estonia has been promoting — may help to head off any complaint by Canada to the World Trade Organization that the green fuel norms discriminate against it.

    Boy do I  hate the W.T.O.

    "We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children"

    by Lefty Coaster on Sat Mar 26, 2011 at 05:10:51 PM PDT

    •  While we're at taking the money from nuclear; (7+ / 0-)

      let's end the tax subsidies for the oil companies.  Both industries can stand on their own.

      •  Yes they can. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        HoundDog, peraspera, Lefty Coaster

        And, they should.

        Exactly correct, Phil.

        •  Did President Obama say that the oil (0+ / 0-)

          industry subsidies were around $30 to $35 billion?

          And, this new proposed subsidy for the nuclear industry is $36 billion?

          Aren't the Republicans demanding $80 billion dollars of cuts from the budget this year,  all from much needed social programs, Medicare, and Social Security?

          BTW my understanding is that the Social Security Trust Fund is completely independent from the Federal Budget we should be talking about now, and is fully funded through the mid 2030s.  

          But, how about we do a little bargaining?  OK, GOP let's chop out this $70 billion from oil and nuclear subsidies, and leave Social Security, Medicare, and our much needed social programs alone this year!

          Oh, here's another $10 billion from shutting down as many bases in Europe as we need.

          Let's declare WWII over.  Bringing home 95% of our NATO troops and equipment, is about $100 to $150 billion I believe.

          I also learned we are keeping 15,000 troops in Japan, and the local residents around these bases are protesting and don't want them there.  Let's bring them home.  

          Does anyone really believe the Japanese are going to attack China, and southeast asia?  This is an insult to the Japanese and German people 3 generations later.

          BTW, someone pointed out that the amount of lost revenue from the tax cuts for the richest 2% equal about $80 billion this year -- about the same the GOP is asking us to reduce social programs.

          Coincidence?  I think not.   This has been their strategy since Ronald Reagon.

          Eliminate the tax cut, for the rich, close loopholes that allow our corporation to actually pay the lowest rates in the industrialized world, all the while their propoganda is the our rates are the highest.  But, with loopholes not corp pays these rate.

          Take $200 billion a year, out of the Pentagon.  We can choose do we want to spend $200 billion a year in Iraq and Afghanistan, or keep NATO?  But we're bringing Defense Spending down, to Clinton era percentages of GDP or lower.   We spend more on defense then the next 42 nations combined.

          Then let's spend $200 billion a year on a massive energy-economy-jobs revitalization of our electrical grids, energy production, and other infrastructure, until we get the job done.

          Hey, I wouldn''t mind if you all changed every single detail here, my main point is that until a great many of us start talking about the big picture, whole system, complete life-cycle level of analysis with greater than this facility and accuracy, we haven't got a chance.

          Republicans are running us around in circles, cutting taxes one year to create a crisis then insisting we make it up in Social Security the next.

          We could shut every library, bus service for the disabled, and every other compassionate and wise part of our discretionary budget and we will not equal a fraction of the amounts imbalanced by Bush's defense expansion and tax cuts.

          Instead of OK Democrats would you rather take $80 billion a year from Social Security, or the state Medicate financing we need to accomplish our health care law?  We should say, take it out of defense, and restore sensibhle and fair tax levels that we proved can work in the Clinton era.

          Are there any traditional Democrats here who want to fight for the working and middle classes?   A comprohensive 50 year plan to convert our energy production to the Scientific American goal they have by 2030 would add an enormous number of high quality green jobs that would give our children some hope of a future not working part time at MacDonalds, and living with 5 our their friends or parents to get by.  

          We need a vision like this that is sceintifically sound, and then just keep repeating it over and over, every time the oil and nuclear lobbyists say we must give them $80 billion a year subsidies on top of everything else they've already got from the Federal goverment.  

          The means is the ends in the process of becoming. - Mahatma Gandhi

          by HoundDog on Sat Mar 26, 2011 at 07:13:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  you're half right (0+ / 0-)

          They both should stand on their own.

          But they can't. Without their insurance waivers and subsidies, they would be utterly incapable of surviving in the market.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site