It really feels like heads they win, tails we lose:
Under President Barack Obama, the U.S. has reduced more carbon pollution from energy than any other nation, about 475 million tons between 2008 and 2013, according to U.S. Energy Department data…
…In 2010, the U.S. still imported more products refined from oil than it exported. A year later, it was a bigger exporter than importer, the first time that happened since 1949. In 2012, these products were the single largest U.S. export, worth $117 billion, according to U.S. Commerce Department figures.
The boom has helped the U.S. reduce oil imports and create jobs in oil fields and ports. Without it, the Obama administration would be much further from a goal to double U.S. exports. The trade deficit would be wider.
But for global warming, it means that, at the very least, the U.S. is making a smaller dent than it claims on global warming.
In the case of gasoline and diesel, the U.S. is exporting far more abroad than it has reduced in domestic consumption in recent years through steps such as efficiency standards and blending gasoline with ethanol.
But I try not to get discouraged.
The real issue relates to the petro dollar and that those who count (aka stock owners of both parties) don’t want their investments blown up.
I’ve always felt the solution involved using the social security trust fund to buy out the oil interests and massively slashing the taxes of energy companies who are involved in alternative energy as well (hint all the important ones are!). Both parties don’t really support it at this point (yes there are outliers in elected office, but they are a minority, and the voters do not count to either party, they are a means to an end, no value outside of that), and it will make sure nobody important loses cash.
Four birds, one stone. Investors don’t lose out, social security issue is dealt with, global warming is dealt with, business gets it’s tax cut. If needed there are other programs we raid for foreign aid to move other nations energy production forward, that should be on the table as well.
That’s a solution, the question is if it’s worth the loss of the petro dollar. I doubt it is, unless there is a way to ration renewable energy and convert it into a limited traded commodity that the US controls through the dollar.
Plus it sucks money out of flyover resource extractors and dumps it into coastal trading areas, always a bonus for team D.
Progress is never linear.
I’d still like to see some Molten Salt Reactors soon.
It really does.
Obama says he willing to defy Democrats on his support of Trans-Pacific Partnership
This is the Glass-Steagall repeal of the Obama administration if it goes through. Hands power to corporations to nullify laws from the international level while Koch legislatures nullify national laws from the state and local level.
Have you chosen which corporation will be your feudal lord?
Ethanol (snorts). It’s why your car runs like crap. Fuel consumption up ten to twelve percent, stalls out on the onramp, chokes up at the stoplight, water dripping out of the tailpipe, pound for pound a heavier overall carbon footprint than refined petrol products.
Another one of those win-win sounding ideas that is an overall loser. Environmentally bad from the ground up.