Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
topaz: (Default)
[personal profile] topaz
[livejournal.com profile] crouchback alerted me to what he and I think have to be the dumbest thing anyone has said yet in this year's Presidential race.  Mike Huckabee, talking to Katie Couric about climate change:
I think we ought to be out there talking about ways to reduce energy consumption and waste. And we ought to declare that we will be free of energy consumption in this country within a decade, bold as that is. (Sierra Club)
Emphasis mine.

This really puts the left on notice.  We have to come up with a new game plan.  Clearly our wimpy "renewable energy" and "sustainable living" approaches are not going to cut it any more, not now that Huck has laid down the law.  Maybe we can pledge a program of free photosynthesis classes to all public school kids?

I really am more pleased every day at the thought that the Republican party might actually nominate this wingnut for the Presidency.

Date: 2007-12-12 06:04 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lhn.livejournal.com
Though it's pretty clear from the next paragraph that he dropped a "foreign" in there. Which is still dumb, but it's a dumbness shared by Romney ("free of foreign oil") and Clinton ("energy independence bonds").

I really am more pleased every day at the thought that the Republican party might actually nominate this wingnut for the Presidency.

Not that I think it matters (I've been predicting a Democratic victory in '08 for a while now, and while I'll probably vote for one of the Republicans I don't see much to like about any of them in particular-- and Huckabee is looking to me like the Howard Dean of this election cycle anyway). But on an abstract level, I'd think that there'd be more glory in beating someone you'd consider a worthy opponent. :-)

Date: 2007-12-12 06:30 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] tyrannio.livejournal.com
In general, I'm all in favor of Millian truth-discovery via examining the best arguments on all sides, but I have to admit I derived a lot more entertainment from Obama vs. Keyes than I would have from Obama vs. a worthy opponent. Perhaps a similar impulse is at work here.

Date: 2007-12-12 06:32 pm (UTC)
ext_8707: Taken in front of Carnegie Hall (eschaton event)
From: [identity profile] ronebofh.livejournal.com
I'd think that there'd be more glory in beating someone you'd consider a worthy opponent. :-)

I guess that makes the 2008 presidential elections an "EPIC LOSE", as the kids like to say these days. What a sorry collection of morons, assholes, liars, and scumbags we have trying to lead this country...

Date: 2007-12-12 06:31 pm (UTC)
wotw: (Default)
From: [personal profile] wotw
To be fair, I'm sure that what he really meant was
"energy self-sufficient".

To be fair in the other direction, what he really
meant was almost as bozorific as what he actually said.

Date: 2007-12-12 06:32 pm (UTC)
wotw: (Default)
From: [personal profile] wotw
That's what I get for replying before reading the other
replies. Apologies to [livejournal.com profile] lhn.

Date: 2007-12-12 07:12 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] harimad.livejournal.com
It seems obvious to me, and has since I was 10, that the more heavily we tap our domestic energy sources, the sooner we will be utterly dependent on foreign suppliers.

Am I missing something?

Date: 2007-12-12 07:44 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lhn.livejournal.com
Strictly speaking, I don't think that would happen for the foreseeable future-- converting coal alone to gasoline would get us somewhere between one and several centuries for vehicle fuel, and we have a fair amount in the way of shale oil deposits as well. Our coal and uranium would probably do fine for electricity for quite a while as well. (IIRC, we have enough uranium and thorium to last for literally thousands of years if it came to it.)

Which isn't to say that volunteering to pay extra for domestic oil or other energy sources would accomplish any obviously desirable policy goals, whether that's impoverishing bad guys with oil reserves-- our biggest oil import sources right now being notorious terrorist supporters Canada and Mexico-- or reducing domestic consumption, which could be done with energy or carbon taxes without getting into a trade war with anyone or subsidizing inefficient local production.

"Energy independence", like any autarky, doesn't seem to me to benefit anyone but the particular sector that will receive the subsidies. But I don't think it's literally impossible if it were something we desperately wanted-- and were willing to enforce with draconian penalties. (Otherwise, I suspect that it would be too easy and profitable to launder fungible non-US oil into the system.)

In market terms, we're already utterly dependent on foreign suppliers, in the sense that the floor price is whatever the world market price for oil is, and all we can do is raise it from there. We can't insulate ourselves from oil shocks from OPEC or Mideastern instability or whatever, except by preemptively "shocking" ourselves by raising the prices first. And if we want to do that, then it's easier to do it with tax policy than import policy.

Date: 2007-12-12 08:04 pm (UTC)
wotw: (Default)
From: [personal profile] wotw
The more food you eat from your refrigerator, the sooner
you'll be utterly dependent on grocery stores. So what?

Date: 2007-12-12 07:05 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] crouchback.livejournal.com
I think this is a sign that he is planning to immanentize the eschaton. Once he's triggered the Rapture, there will be no more energy problems.

Since Hell is exothermic, the Saved will have plenty of energy, and the damned will, too!

Date: 2007-12-12 08:03 pm (UTC)
wotw: (Default)
From: [personal profile] wotw
On second thought, I think Huckabee is to be commended
for his determination finally to bring the laws of
the United States into conformance with the laws of
physics, which do, after all, forbid the consumption
of energy.

Date: 2007-12-12 09:19 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dancingwolfgrrl.livejournal.com
You say that, but think about the wingnut they just elected. TWICE.

Date: 2007-12-12 09:27 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] docstrange.livejournal.com
+1 - I would be very happy to see a race between some kind of non-wingnut from the Republicans, and some kind of non-machine candidate from the Democrats. Seems like it is not going to happen. :(

Date: 2007-12-13 02:39 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] numignost.livejournal.com
Actually this is pretty good compared to his general level of scientific literacy. One of three republican candidates who overtly reject evolution.

Date: 2007-12-13 07:04 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] innerdoggie.livejournal.com
Poor dude is more-or-less scientifically illiterate, although he does say some kinda decent things about health care: like spending more on prevention rather than on expensive treatments for diseases like type II diabetes.

On the other hand, wanting to quarantine HIV+ folks in 1992 is rather illiterate. By then it was well-established that the disease was not spread through casual contact which would warrant a quarantine. (Unlike, say, SARS, or diseases like that.)

Maybe he can learn, since he did change his own life and health, but maybe not enough to be President!

May 2018

S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930 31  

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Page generated Jul. 5th, 2025 07:41 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios