Doug Mataconis held a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010 and contributed a staggering 16,483 posts before his retirement in January 2020. He passed far too young in July 2021.
What’s actually funny about that skit is the effete liberals who wrote it would not be able to grasp that from right below the surface they’re projecting their own inherent racism in the form of the soft bigotry of their very low expectations for Obama.
Had the roles been reversed the skit in essence would have written itself. Romney would have had on a dunce cap and been portrayed as a bumbling idiot. Obama would have been portrayed as a genius orator who smacked Romney around like a redheaded stepchild. Goes without saying. But in the mind’s eye of a liberal the same treatment in reverse simply can’t be applied. And it’s not merely as simple as the obvious point that they want Obama to win. Obama being black, the way a white liberal sees things, means that Obama needs their help; he needs them to excuse his poor performance.
Maybe it’s just me, but I think bringing the crazy at top-of-thread accomplishes less than you think it does.
(I note that SNL was tricked into thinking it is “American energy independence.” It is more absurdly “North American energy independence” in Romney’s platform.)
Obviously you don’t understand that we own Mexico and Canada.
Or that we apparently need to embargo oil from the UK or Norway for reasons that escape me.
Now on the plus side once we have our “North American Energy Independence” going on, we can stop defending the Persian Gulf. We just won’t care about what happens in the Middle East. After all, it’s not like there’s a worldwide market for oil and a price increase in one place would have any impact on our Canadian and Mexican friends and the price they charge for oil.
No, Romney says that he wants North American Independence because he knows that it´s impossible that the United States could stop importing oil from Canada and Mexico. I think that the idea of Brazilian Energy Independence Bull and I think that it´s something insane in North America.
Of course it’s insane. You’d think that even the goal of “north American” independence would be automatic disqualification for a candidate. With or without a “treaty proposal” it is nuts.
Energy independence in oil and gas? It’s basically nonsense. It’s a world market. Price goes up in one place, it goes up everywhere. Are you proposing we forbid Canada or Mexico to ship oil or gas except to us? Are you proposing regulations forbidding US producers to ship overseas?
Solar, wind and nuclear are different because there is basically no world market. We could certainly sell excess electricity to nearby parts of Canada and Mexico, but it’s not anything like the same as oil. Oil can be shipped in tankers — wind not so much.
You want to bear in mind that Mr. Romney did not win the debate because he was right. He’s still a pathological liar and fraud. People who know anything about energy know his notion of North American energy independence is b.s. aimed at people who aren’t very bright.
So when Romney said that BO promised to cut the deficit in half, he was lying?
How about when Romney chided BO for wasting two years on Obamacare instead of working on a bill to reduce the deficit; was he lying then too?
Why exactly did the pathological liar “win the debate”, Mr Intellectual Dynamo?
Yes: Romney lied. Yes: he switched his own positions. There’s nothing new in any of this, Mitt Romney is a serial liar, an Etch-a-Sketch fraud who stands for nothing but his own ambition. But lies work on the uniformed. Obama should have expected Romney to lie — his primary opponents knew it well.
You need to understand that when Romney talks about NA energy independence, he knows he’s full of sh!t. It’s not like he believes that nonsense, it’s just buzzwords for the uninformed. Sounds good, so he goes with it. Same as when he talks about covering all pre-existing conditions but without pushing everyone into the insurance pool. He knows he’s lying. He’s looking you right in the eye and lying, because he thinks you’re an idiot.
Can you read? It is “NORTH AMERICAN” energy independence.
What does that even mean? Will Romney negotiate an energy isolation treaty so that north American countries can only trade with each other, and will support each other’s consumption, allowing no doubt higher per capita energy expenditure in US and Canada than in Mexico?
Who are you to define the term Energy Independence? No one has argued that it means we don’t participate in the world market nor that this would be a good thing. The term Energy Independence refers to the general goal of being a net exporter rather than a net importer.
That’s the thing with you leftists….you take hold to a false premise and scream, “Liar! Liar!” It’s like debating an 8 year old.
Paul…. We are debating 8 yr olds. What part of “global markets” don’t you get? What part of “free markets” don’t you get? What part of “If Venezuela is getting $120 a barrel, why should we Canadians/Mexicans accept $80 per barrel?”
Wait. Energy independence is a bad thing if the answer isn’t blowing in the wind? What the frack!
JKB…. the answer is blowing in the wind… outta yer a$$. I would get more definitive here, but all I need say is world markets… You know, free markets???? You know, the ones you think are going to fix everything? Except when they won’t.
Independence means we are not “dependent” on imports. That we produce more than we consume. Not that we wall up North America and forget the rest of the world. Is that something Obama even supports? We don’t know because we can never actually have an honest debate with mischaracterizations and strawmen and, if that’s the best he can do, he is going to continue to lose the debates.
Independence means we are not “dependent” on imports. That we produce more than we consume.
OK, that is an attempt at explanation. For what it’s worth I think the way you say that is “make the US a net energy producer.” That’s a much cleaner way of stating that goal than “North American energy independence.”
Now, realistically how do you make the US a net energy producer?
Right now we import:
2.2 million barrels per day from Canada
1.2 million barrels per day from Saudi Arabia
1.1 million barrels per day from Mexico
0.9 million barrels per day from (Hugo Chavez in) Venezuela
Do you liberals know that Obama actually spoke 4 1/2 minutes longer than Romney? Don’t let facts and truth get in the way of the narrative you want to spin.
Well, Michael Reynolds must not be a very bright boy now is he? Have you heard of OPEC. Do you not understand that it is a cabal. If there’s competition, that lowers prices. You see, oil is a fungible resource. It’s not static like a statists thinking.@michael reynolds:
Independence means we are not “dependent” on imports. That we produce more than we consume. Not that we wall up North America and forget the rest of the world.
Uhhhh…. Paul? Last time I checked North America was made up of 3 countries, 2 of which owe NO (read ZERO) allegiance to the USofA. (or look at jp’s far more expansive list…. I am a little rusty on just exactly who is on the N American plate)
Reality knocking Paul…. KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK…. We are dependent on foreign oil. We will continue to be dependent on foreign oil. If we drill for every bit of oil we can get our greedy little hands on…. we will still be dependent on foreign oil. And there is no guarantee that that oil is there. Not to mention… FREEDOM!!! Do you really think Exxon is going to sell oil to the USof A at $80 per barrel when they can get $120 per barrel in Europe?????
Really?????
Look, the only sure fire way to decrease our dependence on foreign oil is to increase our fuel efficiency. Yeah, I know, it sucks. We can continue to drive 7 mpg Humvees and enslave ourselves to the Arabs, or increase our MPG standards and give up our FREEDOMs!!!!
@john personna: John Persona, not sure just where you came up with your numbers for oil consumption in the U.S., but the real number is that this nation uses near 20 million bbs. per day.
In order to achieve that goal we must burn every caribuo of course. In all seriousness, we recognize the reality that we are going to be dependent upon fossil fuels for generations to come. That wind and solar are never going to be have a large effect on our energy needs. That we must not be afraid of nuclear energy just because it has the word nuclear in it. That we need to stop playing political games with something like Yucca Mountain, the Keystone pipeline, offshore drilling, etc. That we need to work with energy producers and not against them…that profit motif encourages them to be good players on the world stage and *gasp* even respectful of the environment.
That we realize standard market conditions of supply and demand will lead us to more efficient energy production eventually and most government regulation has a net negative effect in people’s lives and geo-political events in this matter.
Well North America has 3 big countries, and lots of little ones. Cuba is considered part of the continent.
Apparently “North American Energy Independence” is a thing:
North American energy independence is a stated goal of those who believe that the North American nations – the USA, Canada and Mexico – must reduce their reliance on oil purchased from outside the continent.
Also from that page:
In a 2012 poll of energy experts by Foreign Policy magazine, almost two-thirds of respondents said energy independence was not a sensible goal.
Independence means we are not “dependent” on imports. That we produce more than we consume. Not that we wall up North America and forget the rest of the world. Is that something Obama even supports?
Paul, apparently it is something you support. Reality is a b!tch.
That’s the thing with you leftists….you take hold to a false premise and scream, “Liar! Liar!” It’s like debating an 8 year old.
Kind of an odd thing to blame on just “leftists”. You know, considering the recent rash of poll denialism here, here and also the rash of unemployment denialism here.
Seeing that it is okay to paint with such a large brush, to generalize, that since a few people here at OtB happen to have an opinion that you do not agree with, that warrants slandering everyone occupying that side of the political spectrum as a child.
Then it would only be fair for someone like me to say…
Everyone that is a truther regarding the topics in the links I posted, means that all righties are children. And while I do not know if you are one of those people that deny the polls, or the unemployment numbers, that doesn’t matter. You are still in the righties crowd, therefore a child.
I spent a year or two researching energy pretty seriously, for a hobbyist.
The thing that jumps out about your list is that most of those are electricity related, and electricity is not a transportation fuel, and cannot be for perhaps 30 years.
Why 30 years? We keep making gasoline powered cars, and they last on the road. If you want to get off oil you need to start replacing a healthy slice of new car purchases right away.
(That and I really think the Keystone Pipeline is to export oil from North America. It connects Canadian fields to Gulf ports.)
Sorry to multi-post (actually it is kind of my thing), but really proponents of Keystone should understand this, via wikipedia:
Proponents for the Keystone XL pipeline argue that it would allow the U.S. to increase its energy security and reduce its dependence on foreign oil.[63][64] An independent study conducted by the Cornell ILR Global Labor Institute reports that the crude oil routed to the Gulf Coast will end up being exported to Asia, and not contribute to energy independence or national security.[2] TransCanada CEO Russ Girling has argued that “the U.S. needs 10 million barrels a day of imported oil” and the debate over the proposed pipeline “is not a debate of oil versus alternative energy. This is a debate about whether you want to get your oil from Canada or Venezuela or Nigeria.”[65]
One again, strawmen. No one is suggesting that keep Exxon from selling oil elsewhere. Being a net exporter inherently means that we would, um “export.”
We have a much greater chance of producing supply to meet our consumption than we do of cutting that demand in half. Nor do you liberals ever take into account just what that would mean and the opportunity cost that would incur. But that’s fine…just keep throwing 90 billion toward defunct companies…at least part of that money goes back to your political party in the form of campaign contributions.
Well North America has 3 big countries, and lots of little ones. Cuba is considered part of the continent.
Yeah I know, that is why I referred to your far more inclusive list. It is one of those things that is on the periphery of my brain but I don’t pay a whole lot of attention to, but I know that if you refer to it, I can trust it like it came from…. (I almost said “God”) Google.
Yes, electricity is part of an energy plan. Perhaps once we have more of it, electric cars and such would be more viable rather than the pricey POS things they are now.
See, there is a consumer cost that has to be considered. If we simply outlaw gas cars that would have a tremendous negative effect on our economy and people’s lives. And for what? Some dubious claim that cars have a greater effect on climate than the natural orbit of the earth?
The technology will get there eventually and it will still take energy. Now let’s churn up some nuclear power plants and help it along, rather than taxing the hell out gas and oil producers only to have an effect on the pockets of every day citizens.
Debate a liberal? or an 8 year old? Just spank him. You are the only grown up in the room.
This from the crew that is supporting the candidate who tells us that cutting taxes and raising the defense budget will somehow balance the budget…yeah, there’s some real “maturity” there…
One again, strawmen. No one is suggesting that keep Exxon from selling oil elsewhere. Being a net exporter inherently means that we would, um “export.”
Paul, did you not say
That we produce more than we consume.
How do you propose to do this without reducing our consumption? When we are near peak oil? Really…. simple question… I await an answer.
It’s a world market. Price goes up in one place, it goes up everywhere. Are you proposing we forbid Canada or Mexico to ship oil or gas except to us? Are you proposing regulations forbidding US producers to ship overseas?
But it’s always fun to be lectured by illiterates.
And in what fantasy land is this scenario even possible…forget all the bullshit about regulations, political games, market conditions, or any other buzz words that you might like to use…where in this country is their enough oil to allow us to produce more than we consume…
1) Stop saying that the plan is that “we” produce more than we consume. This is a lie. The plan is that Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean, and we, produce more than we consume.
2) Unless we are forbidding Mexico and Canada and the rest to put their oil on the open market this is utterly meaningless. Mexico and Canada will still be in the world market and will sell to whoever pays the highest price.
So long as Mexico and Canada remain independent nations there is no such animal as “North American energy independence,” and the Romney plan remains bait for stupid people. Insisting otherwise is silly.
One other point: if you honestly believe (by whatever mental jujitsu ninnies use to convince themselves) that “we” somehow includes Canada and Mexico, and that “we” will no longer need imports then it follows that we can stop building a navy for 10 or 20 years down the road. Right?
The idea of energy independence is bull, unless you are a net exporter of oil. Brazil was usually used as an example, but the fact is that because the country spends much less energy than in the US(People drive less, much less). There is also the fact that the country may have to build thermal plants in the future and import coal to fuel it and that “energy independence” does not count gas imported from Boliva.
Unless Romney is willing to increase gas taxes to European levels. By the way, cars that run on natural gas are a great idea, but you lose something like 15% of the motor power. Not good on SUVland.
@An Interested Party: “This from the crew that is supporting the candidate who tells us that cutting taxes and raising the defense budget will somehow balance the budge”
You’re obviously extremely ignorant of how the economy works.
The far left is getting desperate. You know whenever one side starts calling the other a “pathological liar”, they’ve hit the bottom of the barrel. And a ThinkProgress article! That’s right up there with CBO analysis! What’s next, a Soros article explaining how Romney’s a child molester and a murderer?
The crazy thing is that the people brainwashed by the far left(see above commenter) have no limit to how far their insanity will take them. They will be utterly used by their masters. I wouldn’t be surprised to see people calling Romney a felon next. Oh wait, that already happened lol…
@Paul: Unless you and a lot of other people are willing to live right next to a nuclear power plant, you may discover why nuclear power plants don’t get built. Yes, we have the technology. But it requires much more robust construction to guard against failures, and no one has yet found a way of guarding against mishandling of nuclear waste and mismanagement of the plant. (The only idea I’ve ever come up with is to insist that all the workers building the nuclear power plant and all the executives of the company running it be forced to live within 5 miles of the damn thing for the next 20 years.)
Electric cars are not going to be viable until the range question has been addressed. This is a problem that has existed ever since the very beginning of the technology. Which was back in the early 1900s, by the way. Thomas Edison spent a huge amount of time and effort trying to get nickel batteries to work for electric cars. (I can bore everyone silly with info on electric car history and electric technology–I used to work in this area.)
For what it’s worth, if we really were out of gasoline, I think people would just stop caring about range. They’d choose cheap neighborhood electric vehicles for daily use, and then go back to trains & etc. for longer trips.
A GEM only costs $9,000. That’s a heck of a lot cheaper than a Tesla.
What’s actually funny about that skit is the effete liberals who wrote it would not be able to grasp that from right below the surface they’re projecting their own inherent racism in the form of the soft bigotry of their very low expectations for Obama.
Had the roles been reversed the skit in essence would have written itself. Romney would have had on a dunce cap and been portrayed as a bumbling idiot. Obama would have been portrayed as a genius orator who smacked Romney around like a redheaded stepchild. Goes without saying. But in the mind’s eye of a liberal the same treatment in reverse simply can’t be applied. And it’s not merely as simple as the obvious point that they want Obama to win. Obama being black, the way a white liberal sees things, means that Obama needs their help; he needs them to excuse his poor performance.
@Tsar Nicholas:
Maybe it’s just me, but I think bringing the crazy at top-of-thread accomplishes less than you think it does.
(I note that SNL was tricked into thinking it is “American energy independence.” It is more absurdly “North American energy independence” in Romney’s platform.)
@john personna:
Obviously you don’t understand that we own Mexico and Canada.
Or that we apparently need to embargo oil from the UK or Norway for reasons that escape me.
Now on the plus side once we have our “North American Energy Independence” going on, we can stop defending the Persian Gulf. We just won’t care about what happens in the Middle East. After all, it’s not like there’s a worldwide market for oil and a price increase in one place would have any impact on our Canadian and Mexican friends and the price they charge for oil.
No, Romney says that he wants North American Independence because he knows that it´s impossible that the United States could stop importing oil from Canada and Mexico. I think that the idea of Brazilian Energy Independence Bull and I think that it´s something insane in North America.
@Andre Kenji:
Of course it’s insane. You’d think that even the goal of “north American” independence would be automatic disqualification for a candidate. With or without a “treaty proposal” it is nuts.
Wait. Energy independence is a bad thing if the answer isn’t blowing in the wind? What the frack!
@JKB:
Energy independence in oil and gas? It’s basically nonsense. It’s a world market. Price goes up in one place, it goes up everywhere. Are you proposing we forbid Canada or Mexico to ship oil or gas except to us? Are you proposing regulations forbidding US producers to ship overseas?
Solar, wind and nuclear are different because there is basically no world market. We could certainly sell excess electricity to nearby parts of Canada and Mexico, but it’s not anything like the same as oil. Oil can be shipped in tankers — wind not so much.
@JKB:
You want to bear in mind that Mr. Romney did not win the debate because he was right. He’s still a pathological liar and fraud. People who know anything about energy know his notion of North American energy independence is b.s. aimed at people who aren’t very bright.
@michael reynolds:
So when Romney said that BO promised to cut the deficit in half, he was lying?
How about when Romney chided BO for wasting two years on Obamacare instead of working on a bill to reduce the deficit; was he lying then too?
Why exactly did the pathological liar “win the debate”, Mr Intellectual Dynamo?
Obviously because of the President’s listless performance…that doesn’t mean that Romney didn’t lie his ass off, because he certainly did…
@Dr Nick R:
AIP has a link above. There are plenty of others.
Yes: Romney lied. Yes: he switched his own positions. There’s nothing new in any of this, Mitt Romney is a serial liar, an Etch-a-Sketch fraud who stands for nothing but his own ambition. But lies work on the uniformed. Obama should have expected Romney to lie — his primary opponents knew it well.
@Dr Nick R:
You need to understand that when Romney talks about NA energy independence, he knows he’s full of sh!t. It’s not like he believes that nonsense, it’s just buzzwords for the uninformed. Sounds good, so he goes with it. Same as when he talks about covering all pre-existing conditions but without pushing everyone into the insurance pool. He knows he’s lying. He’s looking you right in the eye and lying, because he thinks you’re an idiot.
@JKB:
Can you read? It is “NORTH AMERICAN” energy independence.
What does that even mean? Will Romney negotiate an energy isolation treaty so that north American countries can only trade with each other, and will support each other’s consumption, allowing no doubt higher per capita energy expenditure in US and Canada than in Mexico?
@Dr Nick R:
Did “BO” make his promise before or after the housing crash bottomed out?
Would that make a difference?
Apparently a lot of you down-voters think that “North American energy independence” is a good idea.
Why don’t one of you, just one of you, explain how it works?
And explain how “north” is not a cheat-word.
@MR
Who are you to define the term Energy Independence? No one has argued that it means we don’t participate in the world market nor that this would be a good thing. The term Energy Independence refers to the general goal of being a net exporter rather than a net importer.
That’s the thing with you leftists….you take hold to a false premise and scream, “Liar! Liar!” It’s like debating an 8 year old.
@Paul:
Debate a liberal? or an 8 year old? Just spank him. You are the only grown up in the room.
If he ever grows up, you will have helped him. That’s the only satisfaction to be gained here.
@Paul:
Paul…. We are debating 8 yr olds. What part of “global markets” don’t you get? What part of “free markets” don’t you get? What part of “If Venezuela is getting $120 a barrel, why should we Canadians/Mexicans accept $80 per barrel?”
Don’t… you… get?????
@John2:
????????????????????????????????????????????? OK. Cut out the fake tuff guy bullsh!t. We now know you are a complete pwssy.
@JKB:
JKB…. the answer is blowing in the wind… outta yer a$$. I would get more definitive here, but all I need say is world markets… You know, free markets???? You know, the ones you think are going to fix everything? Except when they won’t.
@Paul:
It is normally a “national” question.
No one has ever made it a “continental” thing, a joint venture between:
Antigua and Barbuda
The Bahamas
Barbados
Belize
Canada
Costa Rica
Cuba
Dominica
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Greenland (Kalaallit Nunaat)
Grenada
Guatemala
Haiti
Honduras
Jamaica
Mexico
Nicaragua
Panama
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Trinidad and Tobago
United States of America
@OzarkHillbilly:
Independence means we are not “dependent” on imports. That we produce more than we consume. Not that we wall up North America and forget the rest of the world. Is that something Obama even supports? We don’t know because we can never actually have an honest debate with mischaracterizations and strawmen and, if that’s the best he can do, he is going to continue to lose the debates.
@Paul:
OK, that is an attempt at explanation. For what it’s worth I think the way you say that is “make the US a net energy producer.” That’s a much cleaner way of stating that goal than “North American energy independence.”
Now, realistically how do you make the US a net energy producer?
Right now we import:
2.2 million barrels per day from Canada
1.2 million barrels per day from Saudi Arabia
1.1 million barrels per day from Mexico
0.9 million barrels per day from (Hugo Chavez in) Venezuela
0.8 million barrels per day from Nigeria
Just to be clear, these were Romney’s exact words in the last Presidential debate:
We didn’t make up that weird “North American” thing.
Do you liberals know that Obama actually spoke 4 1/2 minutes longer than Romney? Don’t let facts and truth get in the way of the narrative you want to spin.
Well, Michael Reynolds must not be a very bright boy now is he? Have you heard of OPEC. Do you not understand that it is a cabal. If there’s competition, that lowers prices. You see, oil is a fungible resource. It’s not static like a statists thinking.@michael reynolds:
@Paul: @Paul:
Uhhhh…. Paul? Last time I checked North America was made up of 3 countries, 2 of which owe NO (read ZERO) allegiance to the USofA. (or look at jp’s far more expansive list…. I am a little rusty on just exactly who is on the N American plate)
Reality knocking Paul…. KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK…. We are dependent on foreign oil. We will continue to be dependent on foreign oil. If we drill for every bit of oil we can get our greedy little hands on…. we will still be dependent on foreign oil. And there is no guarantee that that oil is there. Not to mention… FREEDOM!!! Do you really think Exxon is going to sell oil to the USof A at $80 per barrel when they can get $120 per barrel in Europe?????
Really?????
Look, the only sure fire way to decrease our dependence on foreign oil is to increase our fuel efficiency. Yeah, I know, it sucks. We can continue to drive 7 mpg Humvees and enslave ourselves to the Arabs, or increase our MPG standards and give up our FREEDOMs!!!!
This is hard for a conservative, I know.
@john personna: John Persona, not sure just where you came up with your numbers for oil consumption in the U.S., but the real number is that this nation uses near 20 million bbs. per day.
@Incredulous:
Sorry. I usually try to link things:
Nearly 69% of U.S. crude oil imports originated from five countries in 2011
That’s from the eia.gov, the good stuff.
@john personna:
In order to achieve that goal we must burn every caribuo of course. In all seriousness, we recognize the reality that we are going to be dependent upon fossil fuels for generations to come. That wind and solar are never going to be have a large effect on our energy needs. That we must not be afraid of nuclear energy just because it has the word nuclear in it. That we need to stop playing political games with something like Yucca Mountain, the Keystone pipeline, offshore drilling, etc. That we need to work with energy producers and not against them…that profit motif encourages them to be good players on the world stage and *gasp* even respectful of the environment.
That we realize standard market conditions of supply and demand will lead us to more efficient energy production eventually and most government regulation has a net negative effect in people’s lives and geo-political events in this matter.
@OzarkHillbilly:
Well North America has 3 big countries, and lots of little ones. Cuba is considered part of the continent.
Apparently “North American Energy Independence” is a thing:
Also from that page:
@Paul:
Paul, apparently it is something you support. Reality is a b!tch.
Kind of an odd thing to blame on just “leftists”. You know, considering the recent rash of poll denialism here, here and also the rash of unemployment denialism here.
Seeing that it is okay to paint with such a large brush, to generalize, that since a few people here at OtB happen to have an opinion that you do not agree with, that warrants slandering everyone occupying that side of the political spectrum as a child.
Then it would only be fair for someone like me to say…
Everyone that is a truther regarding the topics in the links I posted, means that all righties are children. And while I do not know if you are one of those people that deny the polls, or the unemployment numbers, that doesn’t matter. You are still in the righties crowd, therefore a child.
@OzarkHillbilly:
I know you are a liberal klunk, who is receiving a pretty solid session of instruction.
Later I will check back and determine whether it is doing you any good.
@Paul:
I spent a year or two researching energy pretty seriously, for a hobbyist.
The thing that jumps out about your list is that most of those are electricity related, and electricity is not a transportation fuel, and cannot be for perhaps 30 years.
Why 30 years? We keep making gasoline powered cars, and they last on the road. If you want to get off oil you need to start replacing a healthy slice of new car purchases right away.
(That and I really think the Keystone Pipeline is to export oil from North America. It connects Canadian fields to Gulf ports.)
(I also think the Japanese nuclear disaster is a lesson learned. When you have to board up towns forever, that is for a long time.)
BTW, if you read just one book on the oil problem, I recommend this one:
A Thousand Barrels a Second, by Peter Tertzakian
It is very good on “transition times” and how they work in practice.
Sorry to multi-post (actually it is kind of my thing), but really proponents of Keystone should understand this, via wikipedia:
@OzarkHillbilly:
One again, strawmen. No one is suggesting that keep Exxon from selling oil elsewhere. Being a net exporter inherently means that we would, um “export.”
We have a much greater chance of producing supply to meet our consumption than we do of cutting that demand in half. Nor do you liberals ever take into account just what that would mean and the opportunity cost that would incur. But that’s fine…just keep throwing 90 billion toward defunct companies…at least part of that money goes back to your political party in the form of campaign contributions.
That is too hard for a squishy liberal, I know.
@john personna:
Yeah I know, that is why I referred to your far more inclusive list. It is one of those things that is on the periphery of my brain but I don’t pay a whole lot of attention to, but I know that if you refer to it, I can trust it like it came from…. (I almost said “God”) Google.
Is that the same thing nowadays? (shudder)
@john personna:
Yes, electricity is part of an energy plan. Perhaps once we have more of it, electric cars and such would be more viable rather than the pricey POS things they are now.
See, there is a consumer cost that has to be considered. If we simply outlaw gas cars that would have a tremendous negative effect on our economy and people’s lives. And for what? Some dubious claim that cars have a greater effect on climate than the natural orbit of the earth?
The technology will get there eventually and it will still take energy. Now let’s churn up some nuclear power plants and help it along, rather than taxing the hell out gas and oil producers only to have an effect on the pockets of every day citizens.
@Paul:
Did you just talk yourself out of your solution?
BTW, moderate that I am, I’ve already got my Prius. I spend about $20 every 2 weeks.
@OzarkHillbilly:
Yeah, I just like repeating Cuba. It makes Romney’s plan so much more fun. I wonder when he meets with Raúl?
This from the crew that is supporting the candidate who tells us that cutting taxes and raising the defense budget will somehow balance the budget…yeah, there’s some real “maturity” there…
@Paul:
Paul, did you not say
How do you propose to do this without reducing our consumption? When we are near peak oil? Really…. simple question… I await an answer.
@john personna: CUBA CUBA CUBA… Let me loin in the fun.
@Incredulous:
You said:
Way up-thread from there I said:
But it’s always fun to be lectured by illiterates.
@OzarkHillbilly: Not sure if that was a Freudian slip or not….
Loin in the Fun??? It has been a while since I got laid (not my wife’s fault…. I hurt.)
And in what fantasy land is this scenario even possible…forget all the bullshit about regulations, political games, market conditions, or any other buzz words that you might like to use…where in this country is their enough oil to allow us to produce more than we consume…
1) Stop saying that the plan is that “we” produce more than we consume. This is a lie. The plan is that Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean, and we, produce more than we consume.
2) Unless we are forbidding Mexico and Canada and the rest to put their oil on the open market this is utterly meaningless. Mexico and Canada will still be in the world market and will sell to whoever pays the highest price.
So long as Mexico and Canada remain independent nations there is no such animal as “North American energy independence,” and the Romney plan remains bait for stupid people. Insisting otherwise is silly.
One other point: if you honestly believe (by whatever mental jujitsu ninnies use to convince themselves) that “we” somehow includes Canada and Mexico, and that “we” will no longer need imports then it follows that we can stop building a navy for 10 or 20 years down the road. Right?
The idea of energy independence is bull, unless you are a net exporter of oil. Brazil was usually used as an example, but the fact is that because the country spends much less energy than in the US(People drive less, much less). There is also the fact that the country may have to build thermal plants in the future and import coal to fuel it and that “energy independence” does not count gas imported from Boliva.
Unless Romney is willing to increase gas taxes to European levels. By the way, cars that run on natural gas are a great idea, but you lose something like 15% of the motor power. Not good on SUVland.
Did professor Reynolds or some other wing-nut blog link to this story or something? New punching bags!
@An Interested Party: “This from the crew that is supporting the candidate who tells us that cutting taxes and raising the defense budget will somehow balance the budge”
You’re obviously extremely ignorant of how the economy works.
@michael reynolds:
The far left is getting desperate. You know whenever one side starts calling the other a “pathological liar”, they’ve hit the bottom of the barrel. And a ThinkProgress article! That’s right up there with CBO analysis! What’s next, a Soros article explaining how Romney’s a child molester and a murderer?
The crazy thing is that the people brainwashed by the far left(see above commenter) have no limit to how far their insanity will take them. They will be utterly used by their masters. I wouldn’t be surprised to see people calling Romney a felon next. Oh wait, that already happened lol…
@Canof Sand:
And you’re a guy with nothing.
@Will:
And you’re another guy with nothing.
the facts have been laid out above. Not once, but repeatedly. And you guys got nada. Zip.
Argue the facts, if you can. Explain “North American energy independence” in a way that makes sense. I dare you. Let’s see what you’ve got.
@Paul: Unless you and a lot of other people are willing to live right next to a nuclear power plant, you may discover why nuclear power plants don’t get built. Yes, we have the technology. But it requires much more robust construction to guard against failures, and no one has yet found a way of guarding against mishandling of nuclear waste and mismanagement of the plant. (The only idea I’ve ever come up with is to insist that all the workers building the nuclear power plant and all the executives of the company running it be forced to live within 5 miles of the damn thing for the next 20 years.)
Electric cars are not going to be viable until the range question has been addressed. This is a problem that has existed ever since the very beginning of the technology. Which was back in the early 1900s, by the way. Thomas Edison spent a huge amount of time and effort trying to get nickel batteries to work for electric cars. (I can bore everyone silly with info on electric car history and electric technology–I used to work in this area.)
@grumpy realist:
For what it’s worth, if we really were out of gasoline, I think people would just stop caring about range. They’d choose cheap neighborhood electric vehicles for daily use, and then go back to trains & etc. for longer trips.
A GEM only costs $9,000. That’s a heck of a lot cheaper than a Tesla.
Really? Why don’t you enlighten me, oh brilliant one…
Feel free to disprove any of the points that they made, rather than just shouting, “LIBERAL BAD!!!! LIBERAL BAD!!!!”