What is Digg?Sponsored by Activision
Introducing DJ Hero Game view!
djhero.com - Scratch and mix 102 songs in 93 original mixes from today's hottest artists. Available Now.
81 Comments
- allaboutdatiki, on 07/31/2008, -4/+48Karsner was on the Federal Policy Towards Plug-In Vehicles panel at the Google/Brookings Plug-In 2008 conference in DC back in June. He gets it. Senate Republicans, on the other hand ...
Here's a video of the proceedings (Moderated by Tom Friedman, author of The World Is Flat):
http://www.mpgomatic.com/2008/06/22/federal-policy ... - greendigger, on 07/31/2008, -3/+39Thats sad. But I think, it might benefit renewable energy sector because as of now tax credits for Solar and Wind energy projects are expiring at the end of this yr., and the current govt lacks the spine to make these credits permanent. However, at the same time, they cry foul at the talks of suspending tax credits for oil exploration! Btw, Exxon just made a cool $11.68 billion profit for the 2nd quarter, the largest ever by any US corporation.
- davidryal, on 08/01/2008, -3/+33seriously, can someone explain to me why oil companies are entitled to subsidies and no new alternatives are? free market free market free market waaaaahhhh
- redcolumbine, on 07/31/2008, -4/+29I, too, once had a job where politics prevented me from doing my work. I also quit. Sometimes it's all you can do.
- lateralus, on 07/31/2008, -10/+33Senate Republicans are pro tax when it comes to ruining the environment and keeping us dependent on foreign oil.
- thepoliticalcat, on 08/01/2008, -6/+26Senate Republicans are doing everything they can to stall any kind of effective action, hoping that the public will blame the Democrats who hold a very slim majority. We should remember that McCain wants to give the oil companies billions (of our money) in tax breaks and has yet to comment on what the Bush misadministration has done to maximize their oil company buddies' profits.
- tbhurst, on 07/31/2008, -1/+13I sincerely hope he resigned as a show of discontent with the administration. As allaboutdatiki mentioned, Karsner gets it.
- angryfirelord, on 08/01/2008, -0/+12I'd like someone to explain to me why any company gets money from the government in the first place. Subsidies distort the free market because it tilts the playing field to one side and it ends up in the hands of billionaires anyway. (like the Farm Bill) I'd say the fair thing to do is just cut all forms of corporate welfare because all it does is burden the taxpayer of propping up some industry that doesn't need it.
- inactive, on 08/01/2008, -2/+13And you are a moron.
Drilling here will NOT free us from foreign oil in any way.
It will be a drop in the bucket.
Oh, you are also a ***** warmonger too cowardly to actually put your money where your mouth is. - gavinhudson, on 08/01/2008, -4/+14Thanks for the article. This is the kind of news worth reading about.
- akchrs, on 08/01/2008, -1/+8From whitehouse.gov
Andy Karsner
Thanks for having me. This is my first time on Ask the White House. I’m eager to chat with you today and to talk about the Administration's bold energy initiatives.
Andy Karsner
There will not likely be a single, alternative fuel source that will completely replace oil or (other fossil fuels).
Andy Karsner
President Bush has provided a clear and compelling vision for our energy future. In 2006, he proposed the Advanced Energy Initiative
Andy Karsner
Our energy policy has three important elements: economic competitiveness, environmental concerns, and national security. - sphoony, on 08/01/2008, -2/+8Don't you know we can drill ourselves out of this energy crisis? Who needs alternative energy anyway? Let's just rely heavily on one source of energy because we don't mind getting ass raped everytime a commodity share goes up or down.
- marklad2020, on 08/01/2008, -3/+8It really is ridiculous how narrow and short term much of the world is when it comes to energy decisions. We really can't seem to move out of our own way - and soon we are going to pay big time...
- inactive, on 08/01/2008, -4/+9oil companies need to be bitch slapped back into reality. we need a new administration that extends and hopefully make those credits last longer.
also it would be nice to cut all or most of the tax credits given to oil companies. - altgeeky1, on 08/01/2008, -0/+5You can also restore yearly CAFE fuel standards, and tax credits for energy conserving expenses.
You know, the tax credits that Jimmy Carter championed, and Reagan repealed.
My objection to offshore drilling is based on Exxon's job of cleaning up Alaska... if you overturn beach stones, there's still oil. (Rather than clean it ALL up (a difficult task), Exxon cut all the residents a $20,000 check. That won over votes of approval from the unemployed locals, but it devastated folks working in tourism and fishing). Oil companies consider anything above expenses to be profit, with no money set aside for cleanup.
AT least the frickin $20,000 HUMMER TAX CREDIT is expiring. At one point it was $100,000 credit. That's a bigger tax credit than a Prius got (the Prius credit expired first, too).
With Alaska's corrupt Senator arrested, we might finally get rid of some of the anti-alternative energy hawks in Congress. Yay for America! - akchrs, on 08/01/2008, -1/+6That's a pretty good message. I like it!
- ThinkOutTheBox, on 08/01/2008, -0/+5Simple answer Greed.
See the problem with drilling for more oil and why I'm opposed to it is because under the current agreements the oil companies have in place that oil will not be coming to us. They will take that oil and sell it off to other countries. Besides if you think gas is going to go back under 3 dollars your nuts.
Its the speculators. The current market has already taken into account the supply and demand estimates for years in the future. The demand has gone down in America which should lower gas prices which it kinda has but not really. A gallon of gas goes up faster than it comes down. The speculators know that there is oil offshore and if we were really in a peak oil crisis the congress would lift the bans and allow them to drill.
This is a dog and pony show. The fact is the republicans said that we could see that oil in as little as 2 months so if thats the case then the speculators arent taking it into account. Its market manipulation. Just like the leading post that started this particular thread said, there are 800 billion barrels of oil in oil shale. Everybody that says its not feasible or economically viable to drill and extract that oil shale I say screw the oil companies they profited billions of dollars. Yes its only a 10% market share but the fact is the oil companies have had since the 70's to find and research alternative fuels. The oil companies have created this mess and they should have to eat it. The oil companies should have to cut back their profit margins to keep us going.
Its not the peoples fault for creating a dependency for oil its the Oil companies fault for not doing a better job of looking for a viable alternative. Oil is a non-renewable resource so when its gone its gone. drilling for more oil will only hender the process of developing alternative fuels. The price of gas is going to go up no matter which way you look at it. It might slow the rate at which it increases but non the less we will be paying 10 dollars a gallon soon enough.
We as Americans need to stop depending on the government to fix our problems thats why this whole country is screwed up right now is because my current generation is like "aww dont worry about it the government will take care of it" and thats a very big problem the government has only made this problem worse by not forcing the oil companies to search for viable alternatives. We had an electric car at the turn of the century. Think of where the world would be if they had continually developed that technology.
There are people whos retirement funds depend on the profit the oil companies make. The middle class is losing ground before you know it there will be 2 groups of people The rich and the poor and the rich will continue to get richer off the poor. With inflation it will be harder for average americans to save money because everything will be so expensive. Which directly effects the retired people because the cost for them to retire will have gone up like it is now.
We as Americans need to stop looking at what we can do create a quick fix now then forget about it which is what always happens. We need to effectively plan for the future. And were going to have to make sacrifices just like when our forefathers came over to america to settle. There was nothing here but Nomadic Native Americans. They had to build everything from the ground up. Will it be hard yes is it impossible no. Our problems are only getting worse and the environmentalist are making it even worse by taxing the companies even more money to produce there products. Which gets passed on to us.
Thats the real situation that we face. - haydesigner, on 08/01/2008, -3/+8You do understand that EVERYONE agrees that opening up drilling off the shores and/or in Alaska/artic will only have a negligible impact on how much we as a nation need (let alone have any effect on the price of gas)... you *do* understand that, don't you?
The stupidity of thinking that opening a few more oil wells will help is akin to this scenario:
Your house is on fire, and it is a huge, massive fire. The fire department comes out to try to put it out, but the GOP runs out and says "WAIT! We'll dig a new well, and pull out the water we need to fight this fire... one bucket at time. *That* will save this house, nothing else will!" - licnyc, on 08/01/2008, -2/+6"No, I don't understand - markets react to all sorts of info, one of which is knowing massive supplies are coming to market"
That in itself proves the high prices are due to speculation, not demand.
"Are you saying that we could drill ANWR, offshore, North Dakota, and every other possible oil containing area in the US and it would have zero impact on how much foreign oil we buy?"
Just because the oil comes from america doesn't mean its going to america- I just can't understand why everyone just assumes that. The oil companies will profit what ever country buys the oil- and we will be stuck with the environmental damage. A bigger world supply just doesn't automatically translate to lower prices for us. - licnyc, on 08/01/2008, -0/+4I am not assuming anything, I am stating the oil companies are not required to sell this oil in america and emerging countries will still have a high rate of increased demand. There is no guarantee to lower our gas prices.
- tbhurst, on 08/01/2008, -0/+4Thanks for posting these. But I'm failing to see your point. What would you expect the Asst. Secretary (an appointed position) to say while he is doing a live chat on Ask the White House?
I'd be eager to learn more about the "Administration's bold energy initiatives" too. What exactly are they again? - inactive, on 08/01/2008, -1/+5The GOP certainly doesn't ACT like it realizes that.
So far they still favor big oil over renewables, which is ***** retarded. - inactive, on 08/01/2008, -1/+5And he was doing such an excellent job. I’m sure he will be sorely missed………
- neognostic, on 08/01/2008, -0/+4Read this article on the Farm Bill, it is corporations, not small farmers who are benefiting from this corporate welfare.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ... - kenedamick, on 08/01/2008, -5/+9Wind, sun and water don't put these politicians in office like big oil does.
Good for him - it does seem like he gets it. - mdc777, on 08/01/2008, -1/+4Is the majority really this retarded?
I see these polls about the 60+% of people who support lifting the drilling ban. I know high gas prices suck, but does stupidity really run this rampant in the U.S.?
All it takes is a little research to see that drilling for more oil here at home will do nothing to fix our overall energy crisis and that we need to get real about alternatives…yet the Republicans keep killing efforts to do so.
Read a little people…it does wonders for ignorance. - mdc777, on 08/01/2008, -0/+3ROFL...we are slaves to oil...period. The reality is that we need to get off oil, regardless of where it comes from. Drilling more will only prolong our addiction to oil and we use FAR more than we could ever afford to drill for ourselves. It would barely put a dint in our oil needs and we would continue to buy from foreign sources regardless.
We need to get serious about diversifying our energy sources and REDUCING our dependency on a non-renewable resource, period. Drilling for MORE oil will not benefit us in the least. No amount of retarded indignation is going to change that fact. Wake the f*** up. - haydesigner, on 08/01/2008, -2/+5"They want you to suffer and pay the price..."
Seriously?
That's now your party's big message? Vote for the GOP because the Dems "want you to suffer"?? - oldgal, on 08/01/2008, -1/+4Poor performers always drive out your excellent performers...
- altgeeky1, on 08/01/2008, -0/+3Don't you see? The disruption caused by a collapse of the energy and transportation grids are a GOOD THING... it's brave new investment territory.
Think of it this way... as an investor, would you rather see water ecosystems cleaned up... or would you rather gamble on bottled water investments? See how easy it is?? - licnyc, on 08/01/2008, -0/+3"Less overhead by selling it right here at home. Less overhead = better profit."
You are assuming that, but that is still an assumption. Oil companies are setting record exports...
http://www.cnbc.com/id/25518912
You are touting this crazy line how we need to drill here at home and you never bothered to figure out if the oil stays at home? - tbhurst, on 08/01/2008, -0/+3Because Karsner was the undersecretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy - why would he resign over Congress' refusal to lift the ban on offshore drilling?
- akchrs, on 08/01/2008, -0/+3"he proposed new funding for cellulosic ethanol, plug in hybrid vehicles, wind power, solar energy, and nuclear power. These initiatives are beginning to take effect."
don't hate. - inactive, on 08/01/2008, -3/+6Yeah, let's just all assume it's nothing.
If we don't think at all we qualify to be rightard shills.
Yeah, maybe there is no connection.
But we all have seen what scumbaggery the GOP has engaged in, and there is ample proof that the Bush administration actively foils alternatives.
So maybe you think it's smart to just assume there is never a connection, but those of us with brains who have paid attention know better.
But good for your for once again coming on digg and saying "Nothing to see here, move along!".
Yep, you can always count on a pathetic rightard ***** to tell you to not think for yourself. - keigwyn, on 08/02/2008, -0/+2Exactly tbhurst. If he said anything to the contrary of the Bush Administration's policies in such a public forum, at best he'd be removed from office faster than you can imagine, blackballed from holding any civil service job--or maybe kept from having any good job ever again. At worst though very unlikely, he could be prosecuted under the Hatch Act and be subject to massive fines and jail time. Generally at his level in the government, civil servants are little more than mouthpieces to the White House.
- laserdog, on 08/01/2008, -1/+3The government's job is to provide stability.
Historically, left to supply and demand rules farmers all produced more crop, which then sunk the price on all their crops which then put all of them out of business. At the time, we depended on the existence of successful farmers to keep eating, so letting them go out of business wasn't an option.
In any case, farmer subsidies for not growing crops is a different thing than reducing the tax rate on companies trying to break to nurse new alternative energy start-ups.
Reducing tax rates encourages competition, you should like this. Even if it isn't the complete ripping down and rebuilding of the system which you find a theoretical ideal. - DreadPirate, on 08/01/2008, -1/+3CRC - you have figures backing up your claim, right? Oh wait, this is you - the ranter who almost never backs up his screeds with actual facts.
- exgiexpcv, on 08/01/2008, -0/+2So rather than work towards a stable, renewable form of energy propagation that *can't* be held captive or used as a terrorist threat against our country -- and the rest of world, which exists, despite the majority of Americans belief to the contrary, the current administration and their cronies continue to support the people who give them money to get elected. FFS, the entire administration has held or holds positions on major oil companies.
Solar means the potential for energy independence for the *public*, which they can't allow. So of course they're gonna block any and all efforts to expand it, whether solar-thermal or photo-voltaic. A NASA-style programme for energy self-sufficiency would be in the country's interest, and the people's interest, but not the oil companies interest.
I can't wait to learn more about MIT's breakthrough! - kigcoopa84, on 08/01/2008, -0/+2If your sick of high gas prices then inflate your tires and keep your car tuned up
- Netwatcher, on 08/01/2008, -0/+2Republicans blocked Tax Credits for Green Energy, again? How surprising.
Republicans would vote for a "Gay Atheistic Unwed Teen Mother Arts Center for the Deregulation of Narcotics", if you phrase it in the form of a tax break!
... but Green Energy? Forget it! - inactive, on 08/01/2008, -2/+4You do realize that administrations historically have a decent amount of turn-over, right?
- inactive, on 08/01/2008, -0/+2Amen to that. If a farmer is relying on subsidies to pay his bills, he should probably not be in the farming business. Especially when you consider that some are paid to NOT grow crops.
- LeeSoong, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1COAL: The Future of Energy.
/sarcasm
(- please continue to ignore the yellow ball in the sky and the raw untapped power blowing in the wind . . . ) - ndnspongebob, on 08/01/2008, -5/+6It seems like everyone is trying to jump ship with Bush as president. I guess a bad leader just creates horrible morale for everyone else in the country.
- theman8221, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1Bush said he wanted to lift the ban and oil dropped roughly $20.
IF they started drilling the price would drop more, anyone with even the most basic understanding of the markets knows that they predict the future. So even if oil drilling will take 3-5 years before they start pumpin oil, the market will react now to it. Its not a perminant solution, or the only solution, its a small step. What I dont like is talk of taking no steps other than taxing and investing. We can invest in alternatives, no one is really against that, but we need to utilize all of our resources.
But i guess a little reserch on some bipartisan website would say that it will have no effect. I know i would sell oil short if the ban was lifted, i know im not alone on that.
Its so disgusting how bipartisan people are. - newbill123, on 08/01/2008, -3/+4DIscord? Are they sure it wasn't a power struggle? :-)
- kigcoopa84, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1you truly are an idiot...
- rthakidn, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1I for one would also be willing to "pay the price" to achieve a permanent solution. However, the American people as a whole are not, as is demonstrated by Mr Obama's recent suggestion for an addition rebate to individuals, albeit on the backs (or wallets) of big oil, to offset energy prices. The two don't seem consistent with each other. Big oil operates at a 10% profit margin. I don't think that's excessive. Further, I wouldn't begrudge them a 50% profit margin, after all, its the consumer that pays it. When we cease to pay it, they'll cease to make it. Then we'll move to alternative energy. In the scheme of things, fossil fuel is cheap, that's why WE use it. I agree with you, but I can't be with you.
- Netwatcher, on 08/01/2008, -1/+2Get rid coal, now your talking.
What other ideas you got? - keigwyn, on 08/02/2008, -0/+1I'm with you on that redcolumbine and tbhurst. I worked for several years for the federal government. Even at my extremely low level and insignificant position, my efforts to practice objective science--and just do my JOB--were hamstrung when my informed scientific opinion didn't fit with the current administration in D.C. As I was constantly being told, publicly disagreeing with the official policy in Washington is considered a political statement and you can be prosecuted under the Hatch Act We called it "being Hatched."
I'm sure on Karsner's level, things are FAR, FAR worse. Either he resigned in discontent, or he was warned he was going to be Hatched. I don't think anyone has actually been tried under the Hatch Act, it is such an effective tool at keeping federal employees in line. -
Show 51 - 81 of 81 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is