Friedman nails McCain on alternative energy hypocrisy

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Since he’s trying to exploit the anger Americans are feeling at the pump by basing his entire domestic platform on an “all of the above” energy policy, don’t you think John McCain would be wise to actually show up and vote on crucial renewable energy legislation? Well, according to Tom Friedman, John McCain is a big fat hypocrite after missing eight important Senate votes.

NYT:

John McCain recently tried to underscore his seriousness about pushing through a new energy policy, with a strong focus on more drilling for oil, by telling a motorcycle convention that Congress needed to come back from vacation immediately and do something about America’s energy crisis. “Tell them to come back and get to work!” McCain bellowed.

Sorry, but I can’t let that one go by. McCain knows why.

It was only five days earlier, on July 30, that the Senate was voting for the eighth time in the past year on a broad, vitally important bill — S. 3335 — that would have extended the investment tax credits for installing solar energy and the production tax credits for building wind turbines and other energy-efficiency systems.

Both the wind and solar industries depend on these credits — which expire in December — to scale their businesses and become competitive with coal, oil and natural gas. Unlike offshore drilling, these credits could have an immediate impact on America’s energy profile.

Senator McCain did not show up for the crucial vote on July 30, and the renewable energy bill was defeated for the eighth time. In fact, John McCain has a perfect record on this renewable energy legislation. He has missed all eight votes over the last year — which effectively counts as a no vote each time. Once, he was even in the Senate and wouldn’t leave his office to vote.

This is precisely the reason we are so addicted to fossil fuels. Renewable energy will never become financially competitive with oil and gas until the feds invest in it and incentivize its progression. I hope every Obama energy ad from now til November notes that while he may be talking a good game about supporting alternative energy, Senator McCain 0-for-8 when it really counted.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/08/15/f...ergy-hypocrisy/

[IAMX 3,055]

John McCain recently tried to underscore his seriousness about pushing through a new energy policy, with a strong focus on more drilling for oil

Neato, a new energy policy about doing more of the same.

Isn't that brilliant.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

i heard Friedman on NPR the other day - he was very interesting. He also said that Obama ticks all the boxes on his energy platform, but he scolded him for not being passionate enough about energy issues. That was his POV, anyway.

[IAMX 3,055]

i heard Friedman on NPR the other day - he was very interesting. He also said that Obama ticks all the boxes on his energy platform, but he scolded him for not being passionate enough about energy issues. That was his POV, anyway.

He's right. Obama entirely lacks energy policy vision. Which is the epitome of the Obama campaign -- say a bunch of things and hope people buy it.

[Pooky 3,347]

John McCain recently tried to underscore his seriousness about pushing through a new energy policy, with a strong focus on more drilling for oil, by telling a motorcycle convention that Congress needed to come back from vacation immediately and do something about America’s energy crisis. “Tell them to come back and get to work!” McCain bellowed.

McCain is an idiot. That he looks like Uncle Fester from the Addams Family only reinforces that impression.

Unfortunately, sad though his attitude and record on this subject have been, this does the Democrats no favours. Nancy Pelosi and her minions effectively screwed any Democrat argument for moral superiority by turning off the lights and cameras and going on vacation. By association and the fact that Pelosi loves the spotlight, Obama's campaign is forever tarnished by the impression that the Democrats just don't give a f###.

It needs more than finger-pointing at the Republican candidate to redress the situation for the Democrats. Obama and Biden, if anyone can find him, need to set out a clear and workable energy policy, which addresses both short-term (US oil) and long-term (alternative energy sources) solutions and stands a chance of passing both houses.

P

[spookyturtle 9,465]

McCain is an idiot. That he looks like Uncle Fester from the Addams Family only reinforces that impression.

And Obama looks like Dumbo the elephant with his oversized ears. So they are even.

[kaydee457 13]

This pretty much sums up this silliness.....

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has a great twofer pitch: "green jobs." It sounds like a winner. In one fell swoop he can promise to end unemployment and fix and save the planet from climate change.

Or so he says.

"I'll invest $150 billion over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy — wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs that pay well and can't ever be outsourced," he told the Democratic National Convention (http://tinyurl.com/64szf7).

Wow. Five million new jobs. All that work building windmills and creating biofuels are the "green jobs" that will come into existence when wise government creates the industries that will produce the energy and vehicles that will make fossil fuels obsolete.

Politicians always promise that their programs will create jobs. It's used to justify building palatial sports stadiums for wealthy team owners. Alaska Rep. Don Young claimed the infamous "bridge to nowhere" would create jobs (http://tinyurl.com/6jq623). The fallacy is the same in every case: Even if the program creates jobs building bridges or windmills, it necessarily prevents other jobs from being created. This is because government spending merely diverts money from private projects to government projects.

Governments create no wealth. They only move it around while taking a cut for their trouble. So any jobs created over here come at the expense of jobs that would have been created over there. Overlooking this fact is known as the broken-window fallacy (http://tinyurl.com/ydasa2). The French economist Frederic Bastiat pointed out that a broken shop window will create work for a glassmaker, but that work comes only at the expense of the cook or tailor the shopkeeper would have patronized if he didn't have to replace the window.

Creating jobs is not difficult for government officials. Pharaohs created thousands of jobs by building pyramids. Our government could create jobs by paying people to dig holes and then fill them up. Would actual wealth be created? Of course not. It would be destroyed. It's like arguing the hurricanes create jobs. After all, the destruction is followed by rebuilding. But does anyone seriously believe that replacing destroyed buildings creates wealth?

Look at Obama's plan. His website says:

"Obama will strategically invest $150 billion over 10 years to accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial scale renewable energy, encourage energy efficiency, invest in low emissions coal plants, advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, and begin transition to a new digital electricity grid.

The plan will also invest in America's highly skilled manufacturing workforce and manufacturing centers to ensure that American workers have the skills and tools they need to pioneer the green technologies that will be in high demand throughout the world." (http://tinyurl.com/6rx4vm).

Note that word "strategically." It is there to suggest that Obama knows how best to "invest" the $150 billion. (Of course it is not his money, and he'll have none of his own at risk, so from his perspective, it won't really be investment.) But how does he know that the things he names ought to get the money? Will he give it to cronies of his campaign contributors? Will he appoint Al Gore to pick grant recipients? Lobbyists will make a fortune steering "green" inventors and promoters to the $150 billion.

Politicians have a lousy record trying to make "strategic investments." President Jimmy Carter's Synthetic Fuels Corporation cost taxpayers at least $19 billion but failed to give us alternative fuels (http://tinyurl.com/5ex7v5). In the 1950s Japan's supposedly omniscient Ministry of International Trade and Investment rebuffed Sony and was sure the country should have just one car producer (http://tinyurl.com/6kpbez).

Neither Gore nor Obama can know how the money should best be invested. Investing is about predicting the future, and the future is always uncertain. We know from experience that people who have their own money at risk — who face a profit-and-loss test and possible bankruptcy — are much better predictors than people who play with other people's money. Just compare North and South Korea.

One reason decentralized markets are preferable to government central planning is that human beings are fallible. Mistakes are inevitable. Some investments will be errors. Mistakes in the market tend to be on a comparatively small scale. If one company invests in plug-in hybrids and it goes bust, only a relatively few people suffer. The assets of the bankrupt firm pass into more capable hands.

But decisions by government, especially the federal government, affect all of us. When government makes a mistake, the bureaucracy can't go bankrupt. Instead, it will use its failure to justify increased appropriations in the next budget.

If "green jobs" make so much sense, the market will create them. They will be created by private entrepreneurs and venture capitalists who are eager to profit from winning investments. The best ideas will rise to the top, and green energy will gradually replace coal and oil.

If politicians were serious about creating jobs and cleaner technologies, they would step aside and let the free market go to work.

John Stossel is co-anchor of ABC News' "20/20" and the author of "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity," which is now out in paperback. To find out more about John Stossel and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

source

[IAMX 3,055]

Wow, that's pretty much a Gary-type link, kaydee. Very uninformative, very unbiased.

The government does produce jobs, directly and indirectly.

Energy is either directly run through the government or involves heavy government contracts and subsidies because power qualifies as an essential service. That's why there's the PUC as well.

The government (local, state, federal) has a heavy hand in law enforcement, administrative work, health care (yes, health care -- plenty of physicians/doctors and surgeons work for the government in various ways), education, legal, engineering/infrastructure (planning, construction, etc.), and the list goes on and on.

So whatever ####### the article tried to spew about "moving jobs here and there" is BS. Government jobs are plentiful and creating more energy with government oversight is most certainly going to create more jobs.

[kaydee457 13]

Wow, that's pretty much a Gary-type link, kaydee. Very uninformative, very unbiased.

The government does produce jobs, directly and indirectly.

Energy is either directly run through the government or involves heavy government contracts and subsidies because power qualifies as an essential service. That's why there's the PUC as well.

The government (local, state, federal) has a heavy hand in law enforcement, administrative work, health care (yes, health care -- plenty of physicians/doctors and surgeons work for the government in various ways), education, legal, engineering/infrastructure (planning, construction, etc.), and the list goes on and on.

So whatever ####### the article tried to spew about "moving jobs here and there" is BS. Government jobs are plentiful and creating more energy with government oversight is most certainly going to create more jobs.

The fallacy to this idea is that it may not, or probably will not. Just ask yourself, or Google it if you wish, how much money's been thrown at curing cancer, and how long its been worked. It hasn't been cured yet, has it? The fact is that many forms may not be cured for another 50-75 years, if ever.......

Same with energy sources. Simply throwing money at industries with "potential" is a gamble at best.....one that I'm not willing to hang my hat on given the future of my family, as well as the health of this country relies on it.

I keep hearing people suggest that we come together and fund alternative energy with the same national zeal that we had when Kennedy decide we should go to the moon. Unfortunately the analogy doesn't hold up as we used almost exclusively existing technologies to do so.

We didn't set about dreaming of a "transport beam" and then set about trying to invent it. We used existing rocket technology, existing electronics for the time, and sound engineering principals to make a vehicle do the job at hand........

BTW, John Stossel is simply a consumer advocate and has no bias one way or the other for, or against Obama.

The red highlight is demonstrative of a democrat/liberal. More government and more goverment jobs. Not good! Anti-capalist at the least.....

Edited September 14, 2008 by kaydee457

[IAMX 3,055]

Wow, that's pretty much a Gary-type link, kaydee. Very uninformative, very unbiased.

The government does produce jobs, directly and indirectly.

Energy is either directly run through the government or involves heavy government contracts and subsidies because power qualifies as an essential service. That's why there's the PUC as well.

The government (local, state, federal) has a heavy hand in law enforcement, administrative work, health care (yes, health care -- plenty of physicians/doctors and surgeons work for the government in various ways), education, legal, engineering/infrastructure (planning, construction, etc.), and the list goes on and on.

So whatever ####### the article tried to spew about "moving jobs here and there" is BS. Government jobs are plentiful and creating more energy with government oversight is most certainly going to create more jobs.

The fallacy to this idea is that it may not, or probably will not. Just ask yourself, or Google it if you wish, how much money's been thrown at curing cancer, and how long its been worked. It hasn't been cured yet, has it? The fact is that many forms may not be cured for another 50-75 years, if ever.......

Same with energy sources. Simply throwing money at industries with "potential" is a gamble at best.....one that I'm not willing to hang my hat on given the future of my family, as well as the health of this country relies on it.

I keep hearing people suggest that we come together and fund alternative energy with the same national zeal that we had when Kennedy decide we should go to the moon. Unfortunately the analogy doesn't hold up as we used almost exclusively existing technologies to do so.

We didn't set about dreaming of a "transport beam" and then set about trying to invent it. We used existing rocket technology, existing electronics for the time, and sound engineering principals to make a vehicle do the job at hand........

BTW, John Stossel is simply a consumer advocate and has no nias one way or the other for, or against Obama.

This is about one of the most retarded posts I've ever seen yet on VJ.

One of my two sisters beat cancer. Leukemia to be exact. Thanks to the "throwing money" you suggest, that has helped my sister rid of cancer after 4 bone marrow transplants -- the second of which they say she'd not have survived (i.e. a relapse). Thanks to the wonderful people at the UCSF Medical Center, the "throwing money" at cancer research paid off in these regards. So, yes, certain cancers can and are cured, others are still being researched, and it's not easy.

So yeah, hang your hat on whatever, but this research has results. Too bad your head is too deep into the sand, or too rooted in your clearly stupid beliefs to have any actual insight as to how you and your family both reap from the money used in the health care industry.

[IAMX 3,055]

The worst part is your suggestion that cancer can't be cured and this research is a waste. It's very hard to believe what kind of stupidity can come with that comment. Worst of all, someone who's sister has beaten cancer (thanks to this research) hearing this garbage.

[kaydee457 13]

Wow, that's pretty much a Gary-type link, kaydee. Very uninformative, very unbiased.

The government does produce jobs, directly and indirectly.

Energy is either directly run through the government or involves heavy government contracts and subsidies because power qualifies as an essential service. That's why there's the PUC as well.

The government (local, state, federal) has a heavy hand in law enforcement, administrative work, health care (yes, health care -- plenty of physicians/doctors and surgeons work for the government in various ways), education, legal, engineering/infrastructure (planning, construction, etc.), and the list goes on and on.

So whatever ####### the article tried to spew about "moving jobs here and there" is BS. Government jobs are plentiful and creating more energy with government oversight is most certainly going to create more jobs.

The fallacy to this idea is that it may not, or probably will not. Just ask yourself, or Google it if you wish, how much money's been thrown at curing cancer, and how long its been worked. It hasn't been cured yet, has it? The fact is that many forms may not be cured for another 50-75 years, if ever.......

Same with energy sources. Simply throwing money at industries with "potential" is a gamble at best.....one that I'm not willing to hang my hat on given the future of my family, as well as the health of this country relies on it.

I keep hearing people suggest that we come together and fund alternative energy with the same national zeal that we had when Kennedy decide we should go to the moon. Unfortunately the analogy doesn't hold up as we used almost exclusively existing technologies to do so.

We didn't set about dreaming of a "transport beam" and then set about trying to invent it. We used existing rocket technology, existing electronics for the time, and sound engineering principals to make a vehicle do the job at hand........

BTW, John Stossel is simply a consumer advocate and has no nias one way or the other for, or against Obama.

This is about one of the most retarded posts I've ever seen yet on VJ.

One of my two sisters beat cancer. Leukemia to be exact. Thanks to the "throwing money" you suggest, that has helped my sister rid of cancer after 4 bone marrow transplants -- the second of which they say she'd not have survived (i.e. a relapse). Thanks to the wonderful people at the UCSF Medical Center, the "throwing money" at cancer research paid off in these regards. So, yes, certain cancers can and are cured, others are still being researched, and it's not easy.

So yeah, hang your hat on whatever, but this research has results. Too bad your head is too deep into the sand, or too rooted in your clearly stupid beliefs to have any actual insight as to how you and your family both reap from the money used in the health care industry.

You're clearly very uninformed...."Beating" lukemia isn't a cure, it's a method that works for some, I don't know what the stats are, perhaps 50%, perhaps less.....Let's say optomistically that it works for 75%. It's still not a cure. A cure would result in 100%, or nearly so, say in the 90's.

In the world of energy, 75% efficiency, is as you say "retarded".....Throwing money at a technology that may only produce 75% of what the equivalent oil could produce, hoping for a technological break through is absurd........

I'm an engineer. Clearly you aren't! That's ok, I speak with lots of morons here.

Please keep your hysteria to yourself .....Good luck to any sister of yours, BTW!

Edited September 14, 2008 by kaydee457

[IAMX 3,055]

You're clearly very uninformed...."Beating" lukemia isn't a cure, it's a method that works for some, I don't know what the stats are, perhaps 50%, perhaps less.....Let's say optomistically that it works for 75%. It's still not a cure. A cure would result in 100%, or nearly so, say in the 90's.

In the worls of energy, 75% efficiency, is as you say "retarded".....Throwing money at a technology that may only produce 75% of what the equivalent oil could produce, hoping for a technological break trough is absurd........

I'm an engineer. Clearly you aren't! That's ok, I speak with lots of morons here.

Please keep your hysteria to yourself .....Good luck to any sister of yours, BTW!

You might want to ask someone who had small chances of being cured and who was, if those chances are worth the lives saved. If what you're suggesting is saving lives and researching into it (again, which has results, and it never is 100%) is trivial to you, then by all means I don't ever want to hear you're "pro-life". It's a good thing this research goes on in spite of opinions like yours, because it has no place in society.

Even your half-wit President Bush is 100% for this research that you're against, as I'm sure McCain undoubtedly is too. Your view isn't logical or rational in the slightest.

Anyways, it's tough to offend me, but trivializing cancer research is one thing that is going to result in insults to you, and I'd rather not get myself kicked off these forums because of one idiot.

Edited September 14, 2008 by SRVT

[spookyturtle 9,465]

This is about one of the most retarded posts I've ever seen yet on VJ.

One of my two sisters beat cancer. Leukemia to be exact. Thanks to the "throwing money" you suggest, that has helped my sister rid of cancer after 4 bone marrow transplants -- the second of which they say she'd not have survived (i.e. a relapse). Thanks to the wonderful people at the UCSF Medical Center, the "throwing money" at cancer research paid off in these regards. So, yes, certain cancers can and are cured, others are still being researched, and it's not easy.

So yeah, hang your hat on whatever, but this research has results. Too bad your head is too deep into the sand, or too rooted in your clearly stupid beliefs to have any actual insight as to how you and your family both reap from the money used in the health care industry.

Glad to hear your sister beat cancer, it's always nice to hear a success story. And some cancers are cured today that 20 years ago or so would have been terminal. The research works. We need to keep it up.