|
|
| |
Energize America, the "Daily KOS" Plan
|
|
| |
The trouble with the KOS plan: It speaks loudly and carries a little stick. It shouts: "We will cut oil imports in half and much more while saving trillions," but proposes only a $20B plan. That's 0.15% (1/650) of GDP, and 1/25 the cost of the military.
|
|
| |
"Energize America (EA)" is an ambitious plan to achieve "energy security" by 2020, independence by 2040, and all kinds of wonderful benefits in the process. It was developed over the last three years by a self-selected group at the left edge of the Democratic party working on the blogsite dailykos.com.
The problem with EA is that it is based more on enthusiasm than analysis, with the result that it's starry-eyed promises will set back the cause it seeks to promote. Since zFacts (and most of the country) is in favor of reduced energy dependence and carbon emissions, this section will seek to pull "Energize America" back into the reality-based community where it could do a lot of good. Wish us luck.
|
|
| |
Energize America will: (Draft 5 . Executive Summary)
(1) "save Americans trillions of dollars in energy costs," (2) "reduce GHG emissions 75%," (3) "reduce oil imports by 50%," (4) "generate 25% of electricity from renewable sources," and (5) "create or preserve over three million new jobs by 2020."
|
|
| |
Not a free lunch; we'll get paid trillions to eat it !
Importing oil, is cheaper than buying it all here at home. That's why American industry imports oil. To make money, you buy cheap. Polluting the atmosphere is cheaper (for now) than buying cleaner fuel. That's why industry does it.
If it were easy to save trillions, or billions, or even millions, by avoiding imports and not polluting, we would not need an energy policy. Greedy people would make it happen.
Lunch menu: Oil imports cut in half / Quarter portion of green electricity / Three million jobs / Hold the green house emissions. Price: We pay you $X Trillion.
Even if I believed it, I wouldn't tell anybody. They'd lock me up. (I know, I live in the real world.) There is the occasional free lunch, but a trillion dollars?
|
|
| |
Audacious Goals vs. A Limited National Commitment
The goals of Energy America are quantity targets for 2020: A 50% reduction in oil imports, etc. While laudable, they open the Democrats once again to the standard and effective charge of the do-nothings: "This will cost trillions and wreck the economy."
There is no way to defend against such a charge, because a host of good energy analysts (including on the Democratic side) would probably agree that achieving such goals would cost trillions. If the pros are worried, why shouldn't average Joe be worried? Just because a bunch of self-proclaimed "Kossacks" say they can save us trillions?
There's no need to sound irresponsible
According to EA, the cost is only $20B per year. If the Kossacks believe this, they can and should be more ambitious but guarantee their program cannot get out of hand. Ask for $65 billion/year. That's only 1/2 of 1% of GDP--we can't go bankrupt with that. Build in real and believable limits on the actual costs of the programs, and spend a lot of time proving your case. If they work as you believe they will, we all win. If they fail miserably, we are still safe. People can support that.
|
|
http://zfacts.com/p/417.html | 05/16/08 12:43 GMT
Modified: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 21:12:24 GMT
|
|
