I’d like to draw everyone’s attention to this article in the Wall Street Journal by Jonah Lehrer: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704407804575425561952689390.html

I usually place my references and sources at the end of a post, but this article is so compelling and affirms so well my observation on the effects of Power, that I wanted everyone to read it first.

Have you read it now? Good.

Here’s my point. No, we were not wrong in voting for a political candidate, or putting our faith in a religious leader, or placing our trust in a business associate… If we were disappointed and felt betrayed by their later actions it is probably because THEY changed.

Success breeds intolerance. It can be a very slow process and barely noticeable as it happens.

It happened to me when I started my own business… and succeeded beyond my hopes. Although on a very small scale compared to the mega-powerful, I nevertheless experienced the Paradox as successes accumulated.

The first indication that this Power Paradox is occurring is when the person in power starts spending more time with those that agree with them than with those who do not. Now, I realize we ALL tend to lean toward like-minded people. But we tolerate, and indeed often seek out, other opinions more than those in the throngs of the Power Paradox. Close associates that had once urged a more conciliatory tone are no longer given as much time to voice their opinions. And new ‘friends’ start to rise to the top. ‘Loyalty’ is translated into ‘my will be done’, rather than allowing a slow and deliberate analysis of solutions.

As time goes on, the feeling that the power holder is above reproach, and their subordinates owe them their daily bread, begins to erode the balanced and measured personality that we all admired when we first found ourselves supporting them.

Often, the person in power knows that they are changing. They know that their tolerance and reason are eroding. But, the ends justify the means as success grows. Philanthropy, in those with the most power, becomes a way for the person to cope with their own selfish goals – a selfless act that will balance the scales of their conscience.

You can tell when a person in power knows they are engaging in ‘wrong minded’ things. They will advertise their philanthropic activities and hide, very effectively, their more underhanded dealings. This proves beyond a doubt that they KNOW they are doing wrong, but the Paradox now has them in a tight grip and they are lost to it.

Take for example the Koch brothers. Jane Mayer writes in an article for the New Yorker magazine “Covert Operations; The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama”, about two very successful brothers that took over their father’s business and built it into one of the most profitable privately held corporations in the world. Worth over $35Billion, Koch Industries has gas, oil, refining and milling operations all over the U.S. and the world. Their under-the-table funding for Tea Party and Libertarian groups is unsurpassed. The reason? Their companies are some of the biggest polluters and environmental diversionists on the planet. While Ms. Mayer’s article alleged a war against ‘Obama’ it is actually a war against liberal democracy. Any policy to the left of absolute dissolution of taxes and government regulations will receive Koch money.

Yet, the Koch brothers give millions to charitable organizations, the arts, medicine,… And they willfully take center stage at nearly all their philanthropic events. However, they stay well hidden in their funding of right wing extremism. Because they KNOW it’s wrong.

The Power Paradox can cause good hearted and god fearing people to evolve into a Jekyll and Hyde existence wherein they try to balance their willful neglect of humanity with their generosity. Of course their generosity is targeted to their ideological equals. You’ll never find the Koch brothers supporting a soup kitchen or homeless shelter.

Lastly, let’s be truthful here. The Power Paradox is equally applied to the left of center politic and such organizations as Greenpeace and the Civil Liberties Union. The necessary balance between democracy and capitalism is lost on many of the ideological left. Policies that create a fundamental welfare state or subordinate religious freedoms are often supported by the extreme left. And they have their secret benefactors as well.

I spent many years working on government projects as a civilian contractor. I’m here to tell you that the great majority of the people that work for the government of the United States are dedicated, patriotic, loyal Americans that thoroughly believe in their work and their country. I get very upset by the left wing anti-establishment types that think the government is a militaristic Orwellian conspiracy.

I guess the point I’m trying to make here, is that “We the People” is the one thing that can bring balance back to government. It can negate the Power Paradox by frequently pumping fresh blood into the political process. If we, as citizens of this fine country, can break with tradition, we can drag down the walls of hate and fear and prudence that have been fabricated by the Power brokers.

I still hold on to hope that Obama can, in the end, remain in office for two full terms.  This hope has less to do with his political ideals than his appeal as an individual. You see, he is the first president in over 50 years to be elected without Power money behind his campaign. In many ways, he is the first president elected by “We the people” in a very long time. The Powerful are very aware of this fact. The danger to the status quo is palpable to them. They are scared stiff. The relentless campaign to paint him as a Marxist Muslim is the complete fabrication of the Powerful.  And they keep their involvement in this assault as quiet as possible, because they know that are doing wrong.

My suggestion to you is to vote for an Independent political candidate. Allegiance to a political party is as detrimental to a free people as dedication to a commercial or special interest – or their money.

“The People” are not Democrats or Republicans… We are Americans. We are not ‘left’ or ‘right’ we are men and women. We are not white, black, Hispanic or Asian. We are of one race.. Human. Let’s start acting like it and take back the democratic process from the Powerful. We alone can remove the money from politics and the politics from policy.

JB

Sources and References

Lehrer, J. (2010). The Power Trip, The Wall Street Journal, August 14, 2010. retrieved August 28, 2010 from: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704407804575425561952689390.html

Mayer, J. (2010). Covert Operations; The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama, New Yorker, August 20, 2010, retrieved August 28, 2010 from: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?printable=true

Rich, F. (2010). The Billionaires Bankrolling the Tea Party, The New York Times, Aug 28, 2010, retrieved August 28, 2010 from: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html

I have always been of the opinion that of all the energy alternatives in our future (http://www.aberantnews.org/?p=172), the most viable and applicable was electric.  From personal transportation to energy independent homes and nationwide commerce, a rapid (relatively) move to an all-electric solution would be the most beneficial alternative of any possibility.

Forget hydrogen, bio fuels and those hybrid solutions that require a massive system of creation/refining, transport, storage and distribution – the electric revolution can be fueled by the sun and rechargeable, removable, replaceable batteries.

The drawbacks, however, with today’s technology are twofold: Electricity generation and battery technology.  Several major hurdles remain:

1. Recharging from utility power grids would require an electricity delivery grid two times the size and three times more efficient that those of today. In an era where local heat waves cause frequent power blackouts and brownouts, you can imagine the impact of 300 million car chargers.
2. Augmentation of our power grid with solar energy, nuclear energy and a host of ‘green energy’ technologies are not only extremely costly but will take decades, if not centuries, to satisfy demand on such a scale.
3. Solar cell technology has a very poor history of efficiency and modern mobile generators require combustible fuels to be effective. So the on-board vehicle power generation alternative is still a ‘work in progress’.
4. Battery life and toxic disposal issues will keep long range applications and recycling costs out of the reach of the average person.  Without a way to keep large powerful batteries at or near peek charge constantly, electric over the road commerce and totally energy independent homes will be difficult to realize.

Two technologies will lead us to total electric residence and transport: Photoelectric solar cell technology; and battery storage technology.  If solar cells can keep batteries at peak charge during daylight hours – rain or shine; and if bio-degradable, recyclable batteries can hold a charge capable of providing peak efficiency for 12 hours… We have the answer to 95% of the technical issues.

Another huge factor has nothing to do with technical hurdles; it has to do with purely economic issues.  The economic impact of the energy status quo is formidable; especially where vehicles are concerned. Millions of jobs, billions of dollars in revenue, taxes and economic benefits are generated from today’s fossil fuel driven energy system. From oil companies, refineries and international oil commerce – to the local gas station and the nation-wide transport and pipeline infrastructure – today’s vehicular energy delivery and consumption network generates or influences nearly 20% of our GNP.  And the products and services it provides impacts 100% of the business that drive our economy.

Needless to say the politics of energy may be a much more formidable deterrent to rapid electric solutions discovery than technology.  But there is the knowledge that fossil fuels, by their very definition, will not last forever.  So the future is clear.  It is inevitable.  Within our lifetime refined fossil fuels will become simply too rare and too expensive to burn in your car – or anywhere else for that matter.

Just as necessity and abundance brought the rise of the oil industry in the 18^th century, scarcity and necessity will be its demise in the 21st – if we don’t stop burning oil.  And oil companies know it.

What many people do not know is that today’s modern crude oil refineries produce nearly 100 different products from petroleum.  Only a handful of these products produce energy.  Many of the needs of the petrochemical and lubricant industries will not be met by alternative fuels.  Saving the world’s supply of petroleum for future generations is almost as important as eliminating our dependence on oil for personal energy needs.

And let’s be realistic.  We will probably NOT see a battery in our lifetime that will power a modern Boeing 757 airliner, move a train cross country or propel a rocket… so the need for combustible fuel research and creating an upscale electric grid will remain.  So when I say we need to build an all-electric solution to our energy needs, I am speaking of personal vehicles, over-the-road commerce and private residences.  Solar cell and battery technology are cornerstones of this transformation.

Here at the crossroads of energy policy in the U.S. we must fund research into localized power generation and battery technology. That means solar cells and batteries.  Let’s all call on our congressional representatives and senators to ‘push the envelope’ on research and development in these two technologies and do it NOW.

JB

More to Read:

http://gas2.org/2009/09/11/algae-based-non-metallic-batteries-could-revolutionize-energy-storage-industry/

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=solar+cell+advances&hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&oi=scholart

Ok, so how many ‘clunkers’ will this C4C Act actually take off the road?  Let’s do some math (a practice lost on many of the unwashed bloggers out there).

With the recent injection of another $2Billion, the C4C program now has $3billion.  It provides from $3,500 to $4,500 guaranteed trade in. Only 7% of the entire $3bl can be used for light trucks – it’s meant as a ‘family car’ stimulus.  Many reasons for this, not the least of which are: Truck sales are withstanding the downturn much better; there are less inventories of trucks; and the difference in gas mileage between a 20yr old F150 and a 3yr old F150 is nominal.

For sake of this illustration we will use an average of $4,000 per vehicle; or 750,000 vehicles ($3Bil / $4k = 750,000). So we are looking at taking about three quarters of a million clunkers in trade for new cars.

As of 2005 the U.S. alone manufactured about 5 million cars and 7 million trucks annually (12mil vehicles a year). Looking at just cars (the C4C target) we will assume the U.S. manufactured about 4 million autos a year for the last 25 years – That’s a nice round 100million vehicles produced in the U.S. Imports roughly matched exports over the period, so we will stick with roughly 100million autos ‘on-the-road’ since 1984.

If we assume that 80% of that production is still on the road, we have about 80million clunkers – as defined by the 25yr rule in the C4C Act.  That means the cash for clunkers program affects less than 9/10ths of one percent (.0095% to be exact) of the production over the 25yr period.

So the C4C is obviously not about minimizing ‘clunker impact’ on the environment.  Although, the 4 to 10 mpg higher MPG requirements will have an impact, of sorts, on gas consumption. In example, an overall average gain of 7mpg for each of the 750,000 vehicles would amount to 5,250,000 more miles per gallon.  Not a bad number.

Ok, we can put down the calculators now.  I just wanted to make a point: The C4C program is all about reducing inventory of new cars. Period. It has some nominal side effects, but its target is the auto glut in the nation’s dealerships.

Here’s some facts around the auto inventory:  For those of you that cry about U.S. manufactured vehicles not given favoritism; foreign car makers manufacture a lot of vehicles in the U.S., and 60% of the auto industry employment in the U.S. comes directly or indirectly through foreign auto sales.  U.S. auto manufactures (both U.S. owned and foreign owned) export more vehicles that we import (81.5% of production exports vs. 71.8% imports) so the affect of foreign auto manufacturing, sales and export on this economy is greater than the affect of U.S. auto industry – especially after the recent plummet in manufacturing at GM & Chrysler. If C4C were focused only on U.S. brands, it would fail as a stimulus.

There is also a myopic view by some right wingers that stimuli that “favor some industries at the expense of others” is ineffective and somehow unfair. This view fails to take into consideration all the supply chain and service chain functions that follow manufacturing and employment – no matter what the industry.

As inventories decline, demand will have the effect, in time, of reigniting manufacturing.  In turn, the suppliers to these manufactures will start seeing their excess inventory of parts and components dwindle as manufacturing ramps back up.  Industry suppliers will need to soon replenish through the extensive Just-in-Time (JIT)  supply chains that support the industry.  Even at below normal manufacturing output, employment and the services that support the employees will be better off than at zero output – as many manufacturing plants have all but stopped production with the current inventory glut.

I also read a blog from a pretty good blogger (you know, one of those that finds time to research and actually ‘think’) about the loss of the clunker as a social crutch for the poor (can’t afford new cars – must buy used) with all the inventory of clunkers being traded in (the C4C requires the vehicles be recycled – they cannot be resold).  But as I noted before, the real impact on the used care market (that has its own inventory glut right now anyway) is less then 1%.

This same blogger must be my age. He remembers “the art of reviving and coaxing old cars as a boyhood ritual” – and laments the loss of ‘all those clunkers’ that today’s youth will not be able to keep running after their prime.  Have you looked under the hood of the vehicles made in the last 20 years?  You need a computer degree, a plumber’s license and a shop full of unique tools & equipment for each component on the vehicle.  I’ll challenge any shade tree mechanic out there to change the spark plugs on a 2001 Taurus in the 15 minutes it took me to change the ones on my 1966 Plymouth Valiant slant six!

I installed my own Hurst shifter, Holly 4BBL Double pumper and Hooker Headers on my ’71 Mustang Fastback 351 Cleveland – now THAT was a car! I looked under the hood of a 2009 Mustang at a dealership not long ago. I cried for a week.

My friend, the C4C is not what has ruined “the art of reviving and coaxing old cars as a boyhood ritual” – it’s Technology.

JB

References and Sources

CARS. (2009). Helpful Q&As for Consumers, The Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS), retrieved August 8, 2009 from: http://www.cars.gov/faq

Miron, J. (2009).  Commentary: Cash for clunkers is a clunker, CNNPolitics.com, retrieved August 8, 2009 from: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/03/miron.clunkers/index.html?iref=hpmostpop

NationMaster. (2009). North America; United States; Industry – Manufacturing, NationMaster.com International Statistics, retrieved August 8, 2009 from: http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us-united-states/ind-industry

Raach, C. (2009). Clunkers used to build American pride; The Daily News Journal, retrieved August 8, 2009 from:  http://www.dnj.com/article/20090807/OPINION02/908070316/RAASCH++Clunkers+used+to+build+American+pride

The 1990 Acid Rain Program is a market-based initiative taken by the EPA in an effort to reduce overall atmospheric levels of sulfur dioxide (SO₂) and nitrogen oxides (NO_x), which cause acid rain. The program is an implementation of an emissions trading (cap-and-trade) initiative that targets coal-burning power plants, allowing them to buy and sell emission permits (called “allowances”) according to individual needs and costs. The ARP was the first cap-and-trade program of its kind in the U.S.

The 101^st Congress crafted and passed the ARP legislation during the first two years of the Republican administration of U.S. President George H. W. Bush (with further amendments in 1995 & 2000).

Overall, the Program’s cap-and-trade system has been immensely successful in achieving its goals. Since the 1990s, SO₂ emissions have dropped 40%, and according to the Pacific Research Institute, acid rain levels have dropped 65% since 1976 (when monitoring first began). Furthermore, the EPA estimates that by 2010, the overall costs of complying with the program for businesses and consumers will be $1 billion to $2 billion a year, only one fourth of what was originally predicted.

But CO₂ (Carbon Dioxide) is an entirely different beast. Anytime anything is burned, CO₂ is created. It is a fact of nature and it cannot be ‘reduced’ through technology. Even natural gas, the lowest CO₂ creating fossil fuel, produces over 50% of the CO₂ produced by coal – but it is 4 times more expensive. And as supplies get scarcer, gas will only go higher. As more and more power plants reduce coal consumption, coal gets cheaper. It’s an economic irony that cannot be completely eliminated.

By and large the “clean coal” initiative has met only with disaster. No matter how effective the costly ‘scrubbers’ that sequester CO₂, they cannot eliminate it – they can only ‘capture’ it. And the quantities that they capture are extremely difficult to store as bio-hazard waste products. The need for air-tight CO₂ ‘storage’ is many times that of nuclear waste storage. So while many people, including President Obama, are under the impression that there is a “Clean Coal” alternative, the technology simply does not support the notion. Only the coal lobbyists believe ‘clean coal’ is a reality. No one that understands the science and the technology does, however.

This does not mean that there is not a solution somewhere on the horizon. There is promising research around biomass solutions (like algae masses that eat CO₂ and emit oxygen) and other technologies – but the scalability is not even close yet. More research may be the key – but we are fooling ourselves if we think ‘clean coal’ is just a matter of will, effort and money. It is much more than that.

Once again the government is looking hard and long at a cap-and-trade initiative to attack the CO₂ and other greenhouse emissions. And the Republicans – in true allegiance to the coal industry lobby – are fighting it tooth and nail.

In any event, if we are going to truly find a ‘clean coal’ alternative it will only be when we have the money and the research resources to put to the task. A cap-and-trade initiative for greenhouse gases will provide that stimulus to the industry and the companies that can develop solutions. While its success may not be as dramatic or as quick as the SO₂ and NO_x reductions in the Acid Rain legislation, it will take us in the right direction much faster than any reasonable alternative.

JB

Cappiello, D. (2009). Capitol power plant dims clean energy hopes, Associated Press, Retrieved March 1, 2009, from: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CONGRESS_POWER_PLANT?SITE=OKOKL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

EDF (2007). The Cap and Trade Success Story, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), Retrieved March 1, 2009, from: http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1085

Fehrenbacher, K. (2008). Former Energy Secretaries: Cap and Trade Is Bad for Business, earth2tech.com, Retrieved March 1, 2009, from: http://earth2tech.com/2008/11/12/former-energy-secretaries-cap-and-trade-is-bad-for-business/

Yesterday the U.S. Senate declined to accept a $17Billion bailout deal of the US Auto Industry. After slipping $350Billion under the table to the nation’s most powerful banks and brokerages, many wonder why this is happening. The truth has many faces.

First of all, the labor unions and the political right (republicans) have been at loggerheads for centuries. Whereas the banking and investment sectors have been in bed with the political Right forever, unions are notorious for their socialistic “spread the wealth” philosophy and rarely endorse anyone but a democrat for office. Big money Capitalists and Unions were bound to one day meet for a reckoning – and this was it.

Next, republicans are very ‘lame’ right now with 30% of Senate seats reverting to democrats in January 2009, and this was their last chance to get even with the people who voted them out of office. Many will take exception to this assertion, but I don’t care, it’s the truth. The people that will loose their jobs did not vote republican. Tuff.

The auto makers and the government (that’s all government, democrats, republicans, congress, administration, all of them) were directly responsible for the mortgage/financial crisis (see http://aberantnews.org/?p=51). Thus, to prevent a backlash of indictment from Wall Street they moved quickly to prop up the companies they damn near ruined (Bailout I).

However, congress had little to do with the collapse of the auto industry. Well, that’s not entirely true. The lack of a well defined energy policy and the dismantling of the California emissions standards in the 90’s did not help the industry much. But let’s face it, if the auto industry thought they could make money with eco-friendly, low consumption vehicles, they would have pursued them. We, the people, have had as much to do with the poor choices made by US Auto makers as congress has.

No, the republicans wanted to break the unions and the only way to do that – legally – is through bankruptcy. Bankruptcy would effectively suspend any union contract and force renegotiation before the current 2011 contract term.

Now, let’s get this straight. I am not a union bigot. Nor am I a “do no wrong” union supporter. I understand that unions have been at the forefront of workers rights, a mainstay of benefits reform for all workers and an equal pay for equal work advocate. Unions have also hamstringed businesses in difficult times and made them less competitive than their non-unionized competition. However, as of late the unions and auto industry management have seen eye to eye on many issues including competitive wages and the off-loading of excessive retirement, pension and entitlement programs from the company to the union. In 2007 sweeping labor reform was undertaken by the unions that was slated to bring equity to the competitive posture of US auto makers.

Much is made of Asian auto makers (Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Kia,…) wages and benefits vs. the U.S. But little is said about European auto makers (BMW, Mercedes, Volkswagen,,,) which have wage burdens equal to or greater than the U.S.. However, I must admit, the ‘benefits’ burden placed on the U.S. auto industry by the unions is without global equal.

Let’s get this straight right now. The issue with US auto makers was not the unions, per se, or the Asian auto makers, it was the policies of the U.S. Government (or the lack thereof) and the actions of the U.S. auto maker’s management – and the U.S. citizenry – that stifled intelligent prescience.

For the U.S. Senate – of all people – to decry unions as the sole impediment to an auto industry recovery package (a.k.a. bailout) is hypocrisy at its political best.

I cannot believe that American technology, ingenuity and productivity cannot compete in the world economy. It is obvious, to me, that the political will of the lame duck Senate is malicious to the point of disabling the U.S. economy, endangering thousands of workers and business, and further reducing our economic stature in the world – for the sake of political vengeance.

I don’t like the term “bail out”. Never have. “Recovery package” or “Industrial stimulus” sounds much better. In any event, I would want very smart people – that understand the demands of energy, environment and economics – to formulate a recovery scenario that all three auto makers can adopt and American knowhow can make successful. The last people we need in this mess right now are a bunch of vindictive right wing senators.

Can we PLEASE think of someone besides ourselves just ONCE in this economic mess and think of the thousands of workers, small business suppliers and symbiotic businesses that will fail is we cannot compete in the world auto industry?

Mr. Obama, can you please see that this type of politics is lost forever in history? Mr. Bush, is your legacy to be this type of trite and partisan government?

A very smart mentor once said that “There is no such thing as a useless action. At the very least it can be used as a bad example”. Today’s Republican Right has at least this one use left.

JB

In October of 2008 I opined on several political topics that included political reform and energy policy [http://aberantnews.org/?m=200810]. But the topic of energy was only a surface scratch. The issues facing true policy reform are broad and complex.

There are many types and applications of “Energy”. While the general public and media focus on “Oil” and gasoline prices, the fact is that we need to power industry, homes and buildings, communications, rolling commerce and mass transit – as well as individual transportation.

Each energy solution or application has its draw backs. For instance:

• Solar – Generating power on a cloudy day, storing power at night and maintaining reserves, cost of technology and land required,…
• Wind – Cost to maintain 100 generators that produce the same output as one hydraulic generator; generation in low-wind, maintaining reserves, large areas of land required in wind corridors,…
• Natural Gas – Costly technology (all the ‘easy gas’ has been extracted), depletion rate (non-renewable fossil fuel), many production ‘fracturing’ methods endanger ground water and the environment,…
• Coal – Serious emission issues, no such thing (yet) as Clean Coal, non-renewable fossil fuel, high cost in technology to make coal environmentally viable,…
• Nuclear – Extremely costly technology, major safety and waste disposal issues, time to build and bring online is excessive,…
• Hydrogen – Support & delivery infrastructure costs are immense, resources needed to create, refine and store hydrogen are very high, use in transportation limited with current technology,…
• Biofuels – Food crop depletion, high energy cost (it takes 90% of the energy in a gallon of corn ethanol to create a gallon of corn ethanol),…
• Oil – Increasing depletion rate (non-renewable fossil fuel), largely a non-domestic resource, petrochemical industry requirements go far beyond ‘gasoline’, need to protect strategic reserves, environmental impact of drilling,…

Unfettered competition is best equipped to address these drawbacks and solve the problems. There is no such thing as a ‘perfect’ solution. Today’s hybrid vehicles all use some type of non-renewable fossil fuel. Even the pure electric car owner will have to face issues with battery and toxic fluid disposal sooner or later. Not to mention where all the extra electricity will come from in a power grid that can barely handle today’s demand.

The real challenge for government is how to empower American business to solve specific problems and develop renewable, sustainable technologies without actually subsidizing any given solution. Things such as corn ethanol subsides and energy company tax breaks need to be assessed and discontinued if the are doing more harm than good to our energy future (which most of them are).

Business and competition is best served when government controls the cost of remedies and their source. For instance:

• Tax credits against windfalls for energy industry production of renewable sources as a percent of overall sources.
• Hazardous waste taxes that increment over time to pay for disposal and sequestering waste; and promote reclamation and recycling technology.
• An annual rise in oil tariffs that would make imported oil/fuels 2 to 3 times more expensive than domestic sources in 8-10 years.
• A zero emission vehicle (ZEV) mandate for autos (e.g. 5 years, 50% of autos sold must be ZEV, 100% in 10 years).
• A 50% zero emission mandate for domestic power generation in 8 years; 75% in 15 years, and 100% in 20 years.

Then get out of the way and let Darwinian Economics (natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc.) take over. Just as in nature, the carnage could be significant before equilibrium is found. But the result will be a sustainable future for our country and, indeed, the world.

Rather than spending money on subsidies our government should use taxpayer dollars to hire more EPA agents and implement monitoring technology to insure the health and welfare of the public. Allow American ingenuity to solve our energy problems within the environmental and regulatory guidelines already established for public welfare.

Much like a championship football contest, the referees should not control the outcome of the game, only the way in which it is played. This too should be the role of government in energy policy.

JB

Sources:

Lustgarten, A. (2008). Drill for Natural Gas, Pollute Water?, Scientific American Magazine, retrieved November 18, 2008 from: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=drill-for-natural-gas-pollute-water

Mufson, S. (2007). Article: Oil price rise causes global shift in wealth; The Washington Post, retrieved October 25th, 2008 from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/09/AR2007110902573_pf.html

NOW. (2006). Transcript: Who killed the electric car?; Public Broadcasting Service (PBS); retrieved October 25th, 2008 from: http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/223.html

Pickins, T. (2008). America is addicted to foreign oil; T. Boone Pickins; retrieved October 25th, 2008 from: http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/

Wood, J. (2008). A Solution for General Motors, Seeking Alpha, retrieved Nov 15th, 2008 from: http://seekingalpha.com/article/106216-a-solution-for-general-motors