Stop the Energy Insanity

Reader Comments
Back to article

It appears that the only realistic solution is the people of the U.S. are going to have to agree together what is the most important to them, their greedy desires for making more profit, or, doing the right thing and saving our planets resources and it's environment. It will probably take someone with prestige and power to get the ball rolling. Then maybe more of the general public will want to follow in the endevor to collectively do the right thing. But money can become the root of all evil.as the Blble warns us.

Carla Baker-McCutchen of KS 6:09PM August 27, 2008

Mr. Zuckerman you left out businesses and Wall Street in general when you called for cooperation in solving the energy problem. Realize we had the rail technology to build the fast electro-magnetic trains and sold it to Europe and Japan because we didn't want to spend taxes on such a project back in the late 60s and early 70s. We had an energy policy starting under President Carter looking toward solar, wind, conservation etc. which was squelched under Reagan. If we have a consolidated effort it has to be sold to taxpayers as an emergency program or it will fail. Taxpayers are greedy with their money my friend that is why the nation is in this mess. Taxpayers want services on the cheap and as with many buyers of cheap you will pay substantially for anything worthwhile in the long run.

L Collins of MO 3:34PM July 28, 2008

Mr. Zuckerman states the problem clearly and asks: "What is to be done?" He then describes a set of energy policy solutions, some elements obvious, some debatable, before declaring at the end of the editorial:
"We simply cannot afford a political system that is incapable of addressing such a critical national issue. In other words, we need real leadership in Washington."
I couldn't agree more. However, nowhere does Mr. Zuckerman describe why our political system is incapable of addressing critical issues and offering honest debate and real leadership in Washington, nor does he suggest any kind of solution to that problem.
The root cause of our inability to deal with any of a growing list of critical issues is the control of election campaign funds by corporate money. Even without an explicit quid-pro-quo, the simultaneous lobbying for corporate wish lists and generous contributions to election campaign funds produces government of, by, and for the corporations.
What is to be done?
We the people have to buy back our representatives. This is necessary, if not sufficient, before it will even be possible to have an honest debate on energy policy, global warming, infrastructure, health care, or any of the other major issues demanding attention in our Republic. At the moment, much as it leaves a bad taste in my mouth, the only way I can see to accomplish this is mandatory public financing of federal campaigns coupled with a prohibition on the use of corporate money (companies, unions, PACs, etc) for political purposes.

Carl F. Barnhart of CA 10:44PM July 24, 2008

Yes, we need both, but sensibly in both realms. I've been reading all the comments and two things baffle me:
First, many seem to be arguing that supply is and must be, by right, unlimited. I perceive that supply is, in fact, limited. I see the consequences of many bad decisions, based on an assumption that supply is unlimited (or the day of reckoning could be pushed back indefinitely), are bearing down upon us.
Second, I am astounded by the many arguments that shortage is due to the environmental crowd controlling the Democratic politicians (and that it has the money to do so), and that the Democrats have blocked all attempts to increase supply. I find this curious since the Republicans, funded by corporations including the energy companies, have controlled congress for over 12 years and the presidency for close to eight. What's more, those Democratic politicians get much more of their money from corporate lobbyists than environmental ones.
Given the way power works in Washington, it would make more sense to assume that the energy corporations really don't want to increase supply, because they certainly could have if they really wanted to.

Carl F. Barnhart of CA 10:38PM July 24, 2008

As a reader recently posted, raise the gas tax substantially BUT return the tax to the taxpayer in the form of a credit on their tax return.

of CA 6:50PM July 24, 2008

let me see if I got this straight. According to the author, commodity traders who trade in oil futures aren't adding to rise in oil prices.
I guess (and according to the autohor's logic and congressional testimony) commodity traders aren't making a profit in oil futures. They must be trading just for the heck of it, right?

of CA 6:48PM July 24, 2008

Sorry Folks. It won't. The largest lobbies in the country are all against this in a very knife and fork way.
We need an eisenhower or truman or a real president anyway that isn't thinking about being re-elected his/her entire first term in office.
Sacrifice is not something that is even being discussed in this country. People are going to have to sacrifice before things are "taken" from them.
It needs to be explained that for the moment you can sacrifice for a better future, but in the near future, these things are just going to be taken from you kicking and screaming. It's already started.

of 3:47PM July 23, 2008

4. Substantially increase the gas tax, offsetting it with other tax cuts to induce people to buy fuel-efficient vehicles
I already commute by motorcycle. Depending upon which of my motorcycles I choose on a particular day, I get between 40 and 70 mpg. I already own these relatively fuel-efficient vehicles, but you want to add additional tax to support someone else's future purchase. Doesn't seem equitable to me.

Mike Kelley of MD 3:48PM July 22, 2008

Mr Zuckerman
Your noble attempt at commenting on the inability of the US government to come up with an energy plan - "Stop the Energy Insanity" is laced with your Conservative bias.
To point out just one, you blame the 1990 fuel bill on Democratic Senators Dingell and Levin when (as I'm sure you are well aware) the real opposition to the bill was the President, George Bush Senior. He threatened to veto the bill and his Secretary of Transportation Sam Skinner called the bill "unrealistic and irresponsible".
This is a subject that begs to be discussed from an itelligent, rather than leftist point of view.

MC of CA 4:06PM July 21, 2008

1. The article was better than most I have seen in a liberal magazine.
2. Global warming is a fact that has been going on for the last 8700 years. The contribution from human activities has not been quantified, however politicians are treating it as a fact and are going to waste much of our money trying to solve a problem that may not exist. I would recommend that the writer expand his reading list to include articles by Dr. Richard Lindzen with the Steven B. Sloan School of Meteorology at MIT. and Dr.Roy W. Spencer, principle research scientist with the University of Alabama at Huntsville, Ala.
3. Fuel mileage is generally improved by taking weight out of the vehicle. American lifestyles will have to change dramatically for the little "bubble" cars in Europe to be acepted in the U. S. For example, how will a young mother haul two children in baby seats in one of those cars.
4. Railroads have come and gone and we must ask why. The answer is that they were unresponsive to customer needs. I know this to be true.Years ago, I had road paving projects
delayed by the railroads loosing the tank car or spotting it on the wrong sidetrack and did not give a flip whether they found it or not. Also corporations have the "just in time inventory" programs in effect and railroads do not meet these needs very well.

Richard Crawford of LA 5:32PM July 19, 2008