James Carville told a Wichita audience last night that the real transformative election to watch for will be 2008, because it’s so wide open and the country faces such enormous challenges.
He believes one winning issue for a candidate of either party would be a call for a massive investment in renewable energy and national energy independence — Americans “are so ready for that” message, he said, because they understand that our messy entanglements in the Middle East are all about oil.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Regular on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- Regular on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- writerdog on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- Austrian_Economist on Goldman Sachs ‘apology’ hollow
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
34 Comments
Carville is correct; however, methinks the success of this idea will be contingent upon what the world price of oil is in 2008, combined with perceived notions of success/failure in the Iraq matter.
Gonna be tough on any candidate who takes this approach to get campaing funds from the oil companies, I suspect.
Kansas still has an opportunity to move to the front of the pack in wind. Royalty payments can help local economies.
WOW! There was talk about what the big issue would be in 2008??? Would have been nice if the Eagle had covered that in their article today. Oh well, who expects to find news in the newspaper!
Forget royalty payments. What I mean is, don’t just give away valuable energy for pennies on the dollar value. Kansas farmers can’t install their own wind generators and sell power to the grid operators? Where’s KSU, which was ostensibly founded to aid farmers through research and science dissemination. Today’s composite-blade generators have some high-tech, but they’re not rocket-science products. If the federal government and banks can offer loans for farm machinery for obsolete cereal-grain production (particularly where water is disappearing), they can help farmers’ get ownership of wind-generators.
Those of you who speak of wind-resource-rental royalties are the same ones who thought outsiders’ extraction of Kansas fossil fuel resources with minimal payments to farmers “for a resource they don’t know how to exploit themselves anyway”, would argue for patented-gene “farmaceuticals” and extremely-low-profit-margin corn for biofuels. This is why Kansans LOSE the game. Somebody doesn’t want you to get the lion’s share of your own resources. Either learn to fight them and take your share, or roll over on your back like a supplicant defeated dog.
heartlander – I favor both approaches. The reason I look at royalties is the fact that a power company will likely prefer to deal with multiple landowners via royalties than via multiple power contracts.
“Community wind” is another approach that should be looked at closely.
Great post heartlander.
So is Hillary Rodham and Barack Hussein going to be the President and VP?
“Barack Hussein”?
Joe, you are living down to your usual standards.
What? That is his name!
I thought it was Barack Obama.
His middle name is Hussein.
I’m just going off the reports that Hillary wants to run off of her maiden name.
Since people like Ted Kennedy often times stumble on Obama, why not call him Hussein. His middle name!
Ahh! Something tells me that Ben didn’t know that. Not that it’s any big deal, just the “often wrong” hit you again, huh?
Often Wrong Ben Huie once again. ;) I guess you are up to your usual standards. Oh well!
Joe, you are undoubtly a Republican jerk along the lines of Fleet and KS Golf Balls.
His name is Brarack Hussein Obama. His mother was from Kansas, his father was from Kenya, hence the name.
Grow up – it’s not too late, Joe.
BTW – Do you refer to your hero as George Walker?
No, Joe, I didn’t know his midle name. But, then again, I don’t know your middle name either. Most people use their last name or surname. The intent of your useage was clear.
WS – George Stumbler would be more appropriatefor Joe’s hero.
Often wrong? No Joe; nowhere near like you. And DEFINITELY not hate-filled like you.
WSC – you have to realize that for some reason Joe Williams is so full of blind hate for me that if I even mis-spell a word he will jump all over it. Not really sure the reasons for his irrational hatred.
often wrong?
JOE!
You are the most often wrong person I have ever encountered.
Hey Joe – who do you hate more? Me or MrControversy. Boy, I sure remember you foaming at the mouth at him one day! You were really fun to watch; I thought you might bust a blood vessel!
JR – if I tried to take an exam on middle names I would be “often wrong”: Sam Brownback, Todd Tiahrt, Dick Cheney, John McCain … Haven’t a clue.
often mis-spelled too …
“WS – George Stumbler would be more appropriate for Joe’s hero”
George I Tripped Over A Rock And Skinned My Knee And Now I Need My Daddy Bush won’t fit on a driver’s license.
;^)
Ben?
You got NOTHING on me.
I’m not sure whether Joe hates me or farmgrrl the worst.
Thing is? I don’t hate him. I think he is a good really mixed up guy who types faster than he thinks.
WS you are late to the party. Really you have no idea.
Too many Americans have a VERY short memory, and are STUPID re high oil (and gasoline) prices. Proof? Many have ignored the lessons from the past — cost increases caused by Katrina, 1970’s oil embargo, etc.
Hopefully, growing awareness of our global climate crisis might cause U.S. voters to seek a wiser (and cheaper) energy policy.
‘Himalayan communities face catastrophic floods as weather patterns alter’http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1962363,00.html
Al Gore’s DVD,’An Inconvenient Truth’ has an update covering climate crisis evidence discovered since the film was made.
One was an increase of glacial earthquakes in Greenland. See graph “b” at,http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/news/2006/03_23_06.htm“Annual totals hovered between 6 and 15 through 2002, which was followed by sharp increases to 20 earthquakes in 2003, 24 in 2004 and 32 in the first ten months of 2005″
‘rebound’ quakes (isostatic rebound) are common when the overburden of ice is removed. They are usually not serious in and of themselves as they are minor but they are a significant symptom of what is happening.
BTW – for heartlander and KsFG above – we really have no disagreement here. I want wind power. If the best structure is for landowners to own the turbines that is fine with me. Perhaps a variant of that would be for a Co-op to own a large farm – that way they would have negotiating clout. I have commented before about the possibility of organizing as an S Corp or LLC (subchapter K) for tax/liability reasons.
Kathleen ran out nearly $300 million dollars of wind investment two years ago because they wanted it in the Flint Hills. There is no significant transmission capacity in Kansas except for the Flint Hills. There are 17,000 oil wells in the flint hills but for some reason wind energy is worse.
Carville was one of the president’s closest advisors when they lost the House in 1994 and never got it back.
The only thing I want to hear from him is “good bye.”
A farmers’ Co-op sounds like an excellent proposal Ben. The individual farmers generate power, and their contributions are tabulated, the Co-op serves as a power broker to utility companies, streamlining the contracting process.
It would require subsidization by the government, but that’s a reasonable societal investment. What do we see with the so-called “free market”? A plan to build a coal-fired plant that pollutes the air, wreaking adverse health and environmental effects whose “treatment” costs are passed on to the public, and irreversible withdrawal of precious groundwater, a public-owned commodity that is going to be crucial in Kansas’s future, if it isn’t turned into steam before the public owners realize, “Darn, we should have saved that water.”
Ben, I too dont think we disagree on more than details. I always welcome your scientific approach to things. Same with heartlander.
I think wind is a good part of the mix for alternative energy supplies. I think we should consider it carefully, knowing it has downsides as well as upsides. Just like coal, or nuke or any other source.
I think ethanol is the worst alternative in the mix. Unfortunatly, courting an ethanol plant is the current trophy game in economic development, at least out here.
Until we wise up to the dangers of irrigated corn and ethanol production, we are gonna piss billions away on something that actually has a negative energy output and sucks our water faster than the blog koolaide drinkers will drain the pitcher with a straw.
A good start to addressing the energy problems and water problems in this state would be to have someone other than an irrigating, corn growing, subsidy welfare queen like Steve Irsik running the Kansas water board.
But then, I know governor leadership has other important, more national concerns than water in Kansas. She’ll leave that mess for the next governor to clean up.
Sound like anyone we know who will leave iraq to the next president to clean up?
You read it here first!
The energy companies are required by law to pay for any energy added to their grid. How much is the question. With wind/farmer co-ops, setting as price per KW could be very advantages to the farmers.
Kansas has three wind farms, and should have at least ten times that. Wind is both a short and long term answer to energy in this part of the country. We need to elect like minded people who can make it happen.
Ben,
The Columbia University study (link above) refers to Greenland’s glacier produced temblors, not the “rebound” type.
The increase in glacial quakes there is scary, considering what all that ice could do to the sea level.
Thank you cosmos. I flew by it way too fast last night; you are correct. In fact, perhaps they should be called “icequakes” instead of earthquakes. I was thinking about isostatic rebound quakes like we still see in the Great lakes region and Scandinavia long after the major glaciations that had covered those areas.
I stand corrected. (You may call be ‘often wrong’!)
;^)
Ben,
No problem — the term “glacial earthquakes” is confusing, since there are also the “rebound” types.
Your label of “icequakes” (or maybe “glacier quakes”?) would be better.
That’s interesting about still having quakes in Great Lakes and Scandinavia.I wonder how bad the earthquakes in Greenland area would be if all of the ice melted? And for how long?
But I hope we don’t find out!
They are pretty weak – not a lot of energy stored up. Think of sitting on one of those foam type matresses. After you get up it slowly ‘recovers’ from your butt. Since rock is stiff and brittl it does it in ‘fits and starts’
Energy policy? Why not be like Brazil then? Is the so-called greatest country in the world with the so-called greatest people in the world unable to achieve energy independence like a third world country like Brazil has done? Of course they could. Will they do it? No. Why?
Answer:
$$$$$
CrusaderX,
“$$$$$”? Actually, everyone would benefit from energy independence.
It’s simple. Invest $180 billion (less than Iraq war has cost) over the next DECADE — and get savings of $130 billion ANNUALLY by 2025.
It would also,http://www.oilendgame.com/Abstract.html“…revitalize the automotive, truck, aviation, and hydrocarbon industries; create a million jobs in both industrial and rural areas; rebalance trade; make the United States more secure, prosperous, equitable, and environmentally healthy; encourage other countries to get off oil too; and make the world more developed, fair, and peaceful.”
And it would help reduce the risk of, as Amory Lovins calls it, GLOBAL WEIRDING.