http://axacthouse.com/

I’m not able to get behind a failed Republican whose main objective is to cut government spending. I can believe that he might cut subsidies for all, but I don’t even slightly believe that he’d start making fossil fuels pay for the damage they cause.

He’s just another Republican who is calling for legalization of weed so they call themselves libertarians.

Now, can we get back to clean tech?

I’m glad you told me that about Johnson. I was sort of interested in him. Now, not.

—

Actually I just now read up on him. No, I’m not interested in a “cut spending over everything else” Republican.

I think that though we agree on energy we will never agree on politics.

You’re disappointed that he hasn’t done more. So am I.

The difference between us might be that you believe that there was some way for him to circumvent Congress and operate outside the law. I recognize that had he done so he would have been impeached.

Perhaps you believe that there is some superior individual who could have pulled us out of a very deep recession, out of two foreign wars, given us major health care changes, torn down legal discrimination against gays, rebuilt America’s reputation abroad and solved climate change. I can’t identify that person.

Perhaps you believe that PBO should have put climate change first and pushed everything else to the background. I can understand that. I don’t agree with it, but I understand that different people have different priorities.

My disappointment that PBO hasn’t done more doesn’t get laid at his feet. I blame Republicans and I blame left of center voters from not doing enough to keep Republicans from grabbing control of our House of Representatives. We haven’t even supported PBO in his accomplishments. I have yet to hear a cheer from the left when he does something for which they approve.

I hope you continue to post good references and understand that some people, like myself who watch actions rather than platitudes, are highly upset with Obama.

Snowden, as far as I can determine, was unable to read people’s emails or listen to their telephone calls. At this point there’s a lot we don’t know about what he uncovered and there’s some misinformation about what he found.

It’s going to take a while to get everything sorted out.

—

Tinfoil hat territory to believe that PBO is conspiring to build more coal plants in other countries. To finance their construction/whatever so we can sell coal abroad.
—

To become a law legislation has to be written. Generally that legislation is written by members of the US House or Senate. Sometimes legislation is written by lobbyists or by the administration, but it still has to be presented to either the House or Senate by a member, as if they wrote it.

Legislation has to be passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president (or the president’s veto overridden) and then the legislation becomes law.

There’s absolutely no way PBO could write a good climate/energy bill and get it passed by the current US Congress. It would simply not pass the Republican controlled House.

The budget also come from Congress. The president can request a budget, present a budget, but like legislation it has to pass both houses of Congress before the money is available.

In the 2009 stimulus bill (created when Democrats controlled both the House and Senate) there was a nice big hunk of money that the President had some discretion in the way it was spent.

If you’ll read the links I gave you then you will be able to see that a lot of that stimulus money was purposed to aid wind, solar, EV batteries and other cleantech endeavors.

Tinfoil hat territory to say it has to be total sequestration or nothing?

You are right Bob; I haven’t looked at the information you supplied. I should have told you that. I won’t get a chance until tomorrow morning. I will though.

I don’t fully understand how legislation becomes law and how federal money is appropriated. Though I probably understand it better than most. I’ll take it as an insult that I deserve for not reading your references you supplied last time. I owe you quite a bit for past great references.

“Obama will simply put something up and call it sequestration and we will fund it. So we can then sell coal to them.”

Sorry, that’s tinfoil hat territory. I’m not going there with you.

” I suppose I’m much more into looking at peoples actions rather than their drama…”

I take if from that statement that you didn’t bother reading the links I supplied.

Either that, or you don’t understand how legislation becomes law and how federal money is appropriated.

I think basically if we go around throwing stones at beehives we’ll somehow manage to get a lot of bees wanting to whack us. I’d rather be the kid in the school yard who stands up against throwing stones.

Sure sequestration does not work. However on the street people feel it does. Obama will simply put something up and call it sequestration and we will fund it. So we can then sell coal to them.

As for what the president can do? Instead of prance around with stage props he can be honest and blunt. I suppose I’m much more into looking at peoples actions rather than their drama…

http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy

Check the Energy categories here-

http://obamaachievements.org/list

Starting at #165

http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/what-has-obama-done-since-january-20-2009.html

Sorry, the “wire tap” program you refer to started under Bush/Cheney.

It’s not wire tapping in that government agents are allowed to listen into conversations or read emails without getting a court order. That’s how it has been for along time.

The government is being allowed to store records of “who called whom and when”. If they want to look at that data it takes permission from a judge.

That may bother you, it bothers some. It bother me when I have to take my shoes off at the airport. But we’ve got a bit of a problem with people trying to whack us. I’m willing to let the government be a bit intrusive as opposed to giving the bad guys free rein.

—

I’d have to go back and review the changes in loan guarantees for nuclear but IIRC the corporations who use the fed loan guarantee program now have to put more of their capital at risk.

I don’t think things have gotten a bit easier for the nuclear industry at the federal level. It’s mostly the State of Georgia and a couple other states that are helping nuclear.

—

I see “carbon sequestering” as a coal-killer. We don’t have a way to sequester carbon effectively and at an affordable price. Stick that requirement on and you prevent new coal capacity.

—

NG is about 50% less carbon intensive than using coal.

The choice right now is 100 ‘units’ of coal production or a renewable/NG mix (~40% wind, 20% solar and 40% NG – different proportions in different places.

100 units of coal CO2 or 20 units of NG CO2.

We have to control methane leaks. Otherwise we can’t get to the “20 units”.

—
“What is Obama doing for solar and wind?”

Well, he’s made it very much easier to install both on federal lands, greatly reduced the permitting process.

He’s installed lots of both on military bases.

If you need for me to look up more for you I will. Ask.

The president does not subsidize fossil fuels or under-subsidize renewables. Congress controls those funds.

If you know as little about what is going on as you seem to be then I can see how you could be unhappy with PBO. But you have some bad info on board and need to catch up on some things.

First off don’t get me wrong. I initially liked Obama but by the time he was nominated the Democratic candidate I was already having suspicions about his words and deeds being different. I still get a laugh at all the hatred the Republicans throw at him. Then again I get a laugh at what all the Democrats think he is actually saying.

Cheney would have loved to legally be able to wire tap all American citizens but there is no way he could have pushed that through. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7BmdovYztH8.

We aren’t talking about all the money he diverted to wall street. Or the money he is spending on the military. If you watch his words and compare them to what he actually does he’d make Cheney proud. Well, Cheney wouldn’t be proud of the lying to the masses. The end results though is what Cheney is happy with.

Now in this talk Obama just gave. He sounded very much like candidate Obama. However:
1) He brought up that for the first time in 30 years a few new nuclear planets are possibly going to be built. As if it were a good thing to help prevent more CO2. He doesn’t mention he is bankrolling everything including security and risk from lawsuits. He quickly moves on leaving it as a high note like we’ve done something positive here! No way could Cheney slip that over.

2) He strongly comes out and says we will stop subsidizing foreign coal plants! And then slips in almost invisibly the qualification, unless they use “carbon sequestration”. Huh? So they capture a bit of carbon and we’ll pay for that sequestration equipment and the coal plant? So we can continue to sell record amounts of coal? Cheney would be so proud. President I want would not subsidize foreign energy so we could profit from selling coal to them. It goes into our atmosphere.

3) Around 25 minutes in he talks about how clean gas is. And we need to tighten the methane leaks a bit while we ramp up fracking. Huh? The president I want would close down fracking.
4) What’s he doing for solar and wind? He wants to double it will double even if he tries to prevent it. The president I would like would quit subsidizing fossil fuel and nuclear and subsidize solar and wind. But he’s doing just the opposite and yet people don’t see it.

This is why he would make Cheney so proud.