Conservation as a way for the U.S. to regain it's MoJo

[NiceTom]

Only if your interested in global warming, oil shortages, terrorism and the waining of U.S. status.

An intersting article in the NYTs about the benefits of the U.S. focusing it's technology at conservation of energy, as a way to combat terrorism and aid capitalism. A long article, but some good points (even from a guy who's not convinced).

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/15/ma...c98&ei=5087%0A

[kirbyfan]

I quit reading after the first sentence. People who want to be taken seriously by all sides need not start their discussion with a shot at the President in the first sentencel.

[Just Lucky]

Originally Posted by kirbyfan

I quit reading after the first sentence. People who want to be taken seriously by all sides need not start their discussion with a shot at the President in the first sentencel.

I don't understand. What he says in the first sentence is:

One day Iraq, our post-9/11 trauma and the divisiveness of the Bush years will all be behind us — and America will need, and want, to get its groove back.

Are we so divided we can't even agree we are living in a divisive time?

[Rissask]

Thanks for posting this. Pages 5, 6, 7 are really interesting, about China ....and some good news in there for the Wal Mart bashers!

[eccentrictinker]

Originally Posted by kirbyfan

I quit reading after the first sentence. People who want to be taken seriously by all sides need not start their discussion with a shot at the President in the first sentencel.

I agree.

Helluva way to for the Greenies to try and get all sides working together. Then again, when has the NYT ever tried to be objective?

[Babaloo]

Originally Posted by kirbyfan

I quit reading after the first sentence. People who want to be taken seriously by all sides need not start their discussion with a shot at the President in the first sentencel.

even the current one?
how can one begin any sensible discussion without doing that

[MWC]

Excellent food for thought -- this country truly needs to be making some tough decisions regarding its energy consumption. Just got back from a week in Paris, and the contrast was striking (and not always looking so good for the Euro way, either.)

Vehicle sizes alone -- a Maxima would look huge over there compared to what was on the Paris streets.

The European clothes dryers sucked, though.

[JEZ]

Originally Posted by kirbyfan

I quit reading after the first sentence. People who want to be taken seriously by all sides need not start their discussion with a shot at the President in the first sentencel.

Dont be so defensive. The author didnt apply any blame to the President for causing the divisiveness.... I think you would agree that there is some major divisions out there right now?

[Jacko]

Great, insightful article....excerpted key points for me...

He’s dead right. The market alone won’t work. Government’s job is to set high standards, let the market reach them and then raise the standards more. That’s how you get scale innovation at the China price. Government can do this by imposing steadily rising efficiency standards for buildings and appliances and by stipulating that utilities generate a certain amount of electricity from renewables — like wind or solar. Or it can impose steadily rising mileage standards for cars or a steadily tightening cap-and-trade system for the amount of CO2 any factory or power plant can emit. Or it can offer loan guarantees and fast-track licensing for anyone who wants to build a nuclear plant. Or — my preference and the simplest option — it can impose a carbon tax that will stimulate the market to move away from fuels that emit high levels of CO2 and invest in those that don’t. Ideally, it will do all of these things. But whichever options we choose, they will only work if they are transparent, simple and long-term — with zero fudging allowed and with regulatory oversight and stiff financial penalties for violators.

......

The bottom line is this: Clean-tech plays to America’s strength because making things like locomotives lighter and smarter takes a lot of knowledge — not cheap labor. That’s why embedding clean-tech into everything we design and manufacture is a way to revive America as a manufacturing power. “Whatever you are making, if you can add a green dimension to it — making it more efficient, healthier and more sustainable for future generations — you have a product that can’t just be made cheaper in India or China,” said Andrew Shapiro, founder of GreenOrder, an environmental business-strategy group. “If you just create a green ghetto in your company, you miss it. You have to figure out how to integrate green into the DNA of your whole business.”


....

Equally important, presidential candidates need to help Americans understand that green is not about cutting back. It’s about creating a new cornucopia of abundance for the next generation by inventing a whole new industry. It’s about getting our best brains out of hedge funds and into innovations that will not only give us the clean-power industrial assets to preserve our American dream but also give us the technologies that billions of others need to realize their own dreams without destroying the planet. It’s about making America safer by breaking our addiction to a fuel that is powering regimes deeply hostile to our values. And, finally, it’s about making America the global environmental leader, instead of laggard, which as Schwarzenegger argues would “create a very powerful side product.” Those who dislike America because of Iraq, he explained, would at least be able to say, “Well, I don’t like them for the war, but I do like them because they show such unbelievable leadership — not just with their blue jeans and hamburgers but with the environment. People will love us for that. That’s not existing right now.”

[NiceTom]

The part that stuck with me
".... as Americans started to realize we were financing both sides in the war on terrorism. We were financing the U.S. military with our tax dollars; and we were financing a transformation of Islam, in favor of its most intolerant strand, with our gasoline purchases.... "

As the author puts it
"..geostrategic, geoeconomic, capitalistic and patriotic"


I like the idea of the middle east needing to sell us oil.

I'm not sure why anyone is upset about the first sentence-surely you can acknowlege that we're in a devisive time, even if your the president's biggest fan. And if you don't believe in global warming, clearly much of the world does-we're the capitalistic U.S. of A.-let's figure out a way to make some money from it!