RSS Feed MenuAnd indeed the address itself delivers an ominous early warning of how wasteful Obama’s spending will likely be:
“We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories.”
Obama wants to move away from coal-fired electricity on environmental grounds. Fine. The best alternative, hydropower, is largely tapped out in the United States. (Although there remain some large potential projects in Canada, especially in northern Manitoba.)
So what should be used instead? As a rule of thumb, nuclear power costs about 50% more than coal; windpower, at least three times as much. Solar power costs even more than wind, at least with existing technology.
Those basic cost factors imply that the money Obama wishes to invest in energy technology will almost certainly reduce US economic growth rather than accelerate it. Obama promises that his government will aid the private economy. In reality it will be burdening it.
Bob // Jan 21, 2009 at 7:02 am
In your Reading Obama 1 and 2 comments you offer an economic critism of the administration, that is fine with me, but would really like to see specific plans, you as a conserative, would offer. But I’m guessing the plan, as always, would be tax cuts. Anything else?
Blackaces // Jan 21, 2009 at 7:04 am
Good points, David. Nevertheless, there is still concern out there about climate change. If Obama’s plans are too expensive, what can conservatives offer in place of his plan? How can we address the issue and yet increase economic growth? Is this even possible?
I ask this, because I believe simply ignoring the climate change issue has helped kill the GOP among younger voters. If we want the youth vote, we will have to address issues young people care about, and climate change is one of them.
sinz54 // Jan 21, 2009 at 9:11 am
“Blackaces”: Newt Gingrich has written an entire book on this subject, “A Contract With the Earth” [http://tinyurl.com/7tvjv3]. It talks about market solutions to preserving the environment, that won’t unduly compromise economic growth, and may even stimulate it. I think that it, and Gingrich’s own website, are a good place to start.
We need to get beyond spinning conspiracy theories about global warming being some kind of “hoax” by left-wing scientists around the world to cripple America.
We should have the debate about policy. Gingrich himself acknowledges that there is too much scientific evidence for global warming to deny its reality. And conspiracy theories turn off the vast majority of voters.
BTW: Margaret Thatcher, who was one of the great conservative leaders of the 1980s, was also an environmentalist.
OregonPerspective // Jan 21, 2009 at 11:41 am
David, coal-based electricity may not be the great bargain you suggest.
If the indirect costs of coal are factored into the cost of its electricity, perhaps coal’s present cost-advantage would disappear?
If we could determine the long-term external cost of each energy source and include it in the current price of electricity, would a market mechanism be the best method of avoiding those long-term costs?
The financial collapse shows that neither markets nor governments are as good at recognizing and responding to risk, as we might hope.
Is coal-fired economic growth a bubble that is due to burst, as the costs of global warming become apparent?
These are questions that conservatives need to address.
fact based // Jan 21, 2009 at 12:48 pm
“So what should be used instead? As a rule of thumb, nuclear power costs about 50% more than coal; windpower, at least three times as much. Solar power costs even more than wind, at least with existing technology.”
since no one has built a nuclear plant in decades no one knows the cost enough for a “rule of thumb” plus no one has solved the problem of storing the waste.
Estimating the cost of solar power “based on existing technology” misses the whole point: solar power is a priority for national security and environmental reasons therefore govt assistance is appropriate to seed these industries. Your argument would be like saying in the 1940s that propeller planes are cheaper fighter planes than jets given existing technology so we shouldnt fund r+d for fighter jets.
fact based // Jan 21, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Obama wishes to invest in energy technology will almost certainly reduce US economic growth rather than accelerate it. Obama promises that his government will aid the private economy. In reality it will be burdening it.
You need to learn some economics, if the govt aids in the investment in new breakthrough technology that could create a cutting edge industry in the US it will increase not decrease economic growth. The NIH helps fund basic research that is “uneconomic” for private industry but helps create a cutting edge profitable biotech industry.
bogolyubovo // Jan 21, 2009 at 1:52 pm
—-Geo- Thermal heat / energy is the cheap answer –its unlimited -right under your feet !—===—===—===***** JB
Blackaces // Jan 22, 2009 at 10:06 am
sinz54: Thanks, I will certainly check out Newt’s book. I an interested to hear what he says about the issue and am glad even he doesn’t doubt it’s reality.