Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

What if: Reagan hadn't crushed Carter's energy initiatives?


ChocolateCitySkin

Recommended Posts

http://www.energybulletin.net/9657.html

Was Jimmy Carter right?

by Stephen Koff

RELATED NEWS:

Peak Oil Review - May 26th, 2008...

Reducing DoD fossil-fuel dependence...

The illusion of vast undeveloped U.S. oil resources...

Ignoring the elephant in the room...

Peak oil: “It’s the flows, stupid!”...

Washington- President Bush is telling Americans to go easy on energy, use carpools and "curtail nonessential travel" - an unusual moment for an administration that used to say it could meet growing energy demand by expanding supply, not consuming less.

But this is not a Jimmy Carter, turn- down-the-thermostat, late-1970s moment.

Carter wore a cardigan when asking Americans to bear a little discomfort in a time of severe oil price increases. Last Monday, Bush rode in a motorcade - two limousines, three utility vans, six SUVs and a medical truck - to the climate-controlled Department of Energy, where he appeared in a suit and tie behind a podium.

Symbols aside, the former oilman who occupies the White House today shares a problem that plagued Carter, a former peanut farmer and naval nuclear engineer: How to solve an energy crunch in a nation utterly dependent on fossil fuel?

Conservation is only a tiny part of Bush's answer, although on Monday, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman will lay out what his office calls a comprehensive, national conservation campaign in the face of rising winter energy costs.

In the past, Bush focused on promoting new nuclear power plants, better use of coal, new shipments of liquefied natural gas and further exploration of oil and gas in Alaska.

Bush's energy problems stem largely from growing worldwide demand for limited supplies of oil and natural gas. The situation has grown worse because of the war in Iraq and, recently, hurricanes Katrina and Rita, which knocked out rigs in the Gulf Coast and hampered refineries.

Carter faced a crisis from a combination of economic problems, failed policies of his predecessors and, finally, an Iranian revolution that cut access to some Middle Eastern oil.

Carter met the problems by starting sweeping oil-reduction reforms, including creation of the Cabinet-level Department of Energy.

He began spending millions of dollars researching alternative sources for electrical power, including solar power. He got utilities to cut their use of oil for electricity and ramp up their use of natural gas or coal.

"Up until Carter, we were getting about 20 percent of our electricity from oil generation," said Jay Hakes, director of the Energy Information Administration under Carter and an authority on modern presidents and oil. "And post-Carter, it went down to about 3 percent."

Carter insisted that U.S. automakers build more fuel-efficient cars, with a goal of 27.5 miles per gallon over the following decade - a requirement passed under Gerald Ford but put into force by Carter.

He offered incentives for getting oil from shale, creating a boom initially in the Rockies - and a bust when it failed to be cost-effective. He offered deductions for using solar water heaters in homes and commercial buildings.

"People in the upper-income bracket were always looking for tax cuts. They were going to build a house anyhow, so they were saying, 'Well let's look at this solar stuff and see what we can do,' " said Marc Giaccardo, a professor at the University of Texas at San Antonio who at the time was an Albuquerque architect.

Carter even had solar collec tors installed on the White House grounds to heat the executive residence's water.

Then Carter lost re-election to Ronald Reagan in 1980. The so lar panels at the White House eventually came down - and Reagan and his aides gutted the solar research program.

"In June or July of 1981, on the bleakest day of my professional life, they descended on the Solar Energy Research Institute, fired about half of our staff and all of our contractors, including two people who went on to win Nobel prizes in other fields, and reduced our $130 million budget by $100 million," recalls Denis Hayes, the founder of Earth Day, who had been hired by Carter to spearhead the solar initiative.

click link for rest of article

----------------------------------------------

i always wondered about this... sigh... i just wish ronnie had the foresight to not hack apart carter's initiatives -- we'd be in a much different situation now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see you didn't like the "common dreams" leftist link, so you went one down

Let me be clear. Carter was the largest **** up in the presidency in the 20th century.

As for energy, he basically shut down nuke plants. Way to go Jimma

The only plan he had was to try and divert us to untested alternatives, solar being one

30 years later solar isn't even a good option, although it's a hell of a lot better than in Carters day.

His only other solution was to lower the thermostat in winter and make a speech to people about what temperature to have your thermostat set on

Didn't Obama do this same thing just the other day?

Jimmy Carter Jr is coming..................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see you didn't like the "common dreams" leftist link, so you went one down

Let me be clear. Carter was the largest **** up in the presidency in the 20th century.

As for energy, he basically shut down nuke plants. Way to go Jimma

The only plan he had was to try and divert us to untested alternatives, solar being one

30 years later solar isn't even a good option, although it's a hell of a lot better than in Carters day.

His only other solution was to lower the thermostat in winter and make a speech to people about what temperature to have your thermostat set on

Didn't Obama do this same thing just the other day?

Jimmy Carter Jr is coming..................

oh really? funny how reagan being all good and great hacked apart all the research programs that would have been finding alternatives for the past 30 years.

you stop and think about how much ahead of the rest of the world we'd be if we actually had been researching instead of lowering the bar for automobile manufacturers and oil companies???

how about just common sense stuff sarge? like lowering the thermostat. or just having building aligned north south. that fact, remains carter was calling for long term solutions not the pandering that reagan did. but i guess you have to be somewhat forward thinking to see that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reagan said we needed anwar in 87?

IF we would have gone with that and shale and refinaries we'd be bigger than Saudi Arabia. Gas would be 10-20cents and we'd be exporting enough oil to pay for medical.

And the only reason the price of gas is going up is because of uncertainty about what's going to happen in the middle east. In fact, I predict that one week after we invade Iraq, gasoline will fall below a dollar a gallon, because the uncertainty will be removed.

- Rush Limbaugh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jimmy Carter was and is a great man. He lives on Earth, not in the USA. He helps because it helps, not because it pays. He tells you the truth, not what you want to hear. That's why this country hates him. His way is not the american way. It's the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/06/20030625-6.html

On June 25, 2003, the United States and the European Union agreed to collaborate on the acceleration of the development of the hydrogen economy.

Both President Bush and European Commission President Prodi have made the development of a hydrogen economy a major priority.

President Bush's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, announced on January 28, 2003, envisions the transformation of the nation's transportation fleet from a near-total reliance on petroleum to steadily increasing use of clean-burning hydrogen.

President Prodi at the European Union June 16-17 High Level Group on Hydrogen and Fuel cells Conference noted that hydrogen now looks like the best candidate to address sustainable development.

On June 16, Secretary Abraham and European Commissioner for Research Busquin signed the Cooperation in the Area of Fuel Cells, an annex to the 2001 Non-Nuclear Science & Technology Agreement.

U.S.-EU collaboration on the development of a hydrogen economy will provide a strong foundation for the International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy (IPHE), announced by the United States in April of this year.

It will enable the U.S. and EU to: further the goals of sustained economic growth; strengthen our cooperation to work for universally compatible codes, standards, and regulations; strengthen our cooperation on research and development; and work together to foster public-private collaboration.

Background: Development of a Hydrogen Economy

President Bush's $1.2 billion hydrogen fuel initiative aims to reverse America's growing dependence on foreign oil by accelerating the commercialization of hydrogen-powered fuel cells to power cars, trucks, homes and businesses with no pollution or greenhouse gases.

The Hydrogen Fuel Initiative will include $720 million in new funding over the next five years to develop the technologies and infrastructure to produce, store, and distribute hydrogen for use in fuel cell vehicles and electricity generation.

Combined with the FreedomCAR (Cooperative Automotive Research) initiative, President Bush is proposing a total of $1.7 billion over the next five years to develop hydrogen-powered fuel cells, hydrogen infrastructure and advanced automotive technologies.

That evil bastage! :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jimmy Carter was and is a great man. He lives on Earth, not in the USA. He helps because it helps, not because it pays. He tells you the truth, not what you want to hear. That's why this country hates him. His way is not the american way. It's the way.

:applause:

Up until I took political science in college I thought that Carter was a big **** up because that was what I had always heard. Boy, was I wrong. I wrote a short paper about why American's talk about the Carter presidency like it was the black plague or something. After watching a couple of his speeches and learning about what he actually attempted to accomplish, I concluded that his lack of an ability to get things done with such a corrupt Congress, and his telling "it like it is" to the American public (i.e. tools) is what has tarnished what should have been one of the greatest presidential legacies to date.

Carter may have been wrong about nuclear power; however, at that point in time they knew a whole lot less then they know now, and nuclear power was not without risk. I do believe that nuclear power is should be used more. (I'll save it for another thread).

Jimmy Carter is a great man--humble beginnings, eventually a Senator, then top dog in the U.S. He truly lived the American dream. If he ran for president again I might actually go vote.

**** Republicans.

**** Democrats.

**** Tools.

The mark of a true leader is a leader that asks for sacrifice for the greater good. Something American's are dead set against.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Solar power is very much a viable option in today's day and age, in addition to other forms of alternative-energy production (such as wind power). Here in Maryland, you can get several thousand dollars in tax credit for adding solar panels to one's house.

Also, Honda has the first production fuel-cell car, the FCX Clarity, that you can purchase in the US:

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/11/honda-unveils-p.html

I am hoping this is only the tip of the iceberg for these vehicles.

IMO, I believe it's ridiculous that we are not making a great national effort to move to alternative energies and fuels. This article demonstrates that, decades ago, we were aware of a future energy crisis, and here we are, as projected, dealing with these problems.

Competition for resources breed war and conflict, which further diverts the funding necessary to reach energy independence.

The Reagan administration was indeed terrible for the field of alternative energy, and the appointment of James Watt really demonstrated the direction that the Reagan administration wanted to take with natural resources.

Personally I believe it should be our patriotic duty to create energy independence, and not just from foreign sources of oil, but from oil, period. But I have no idea why some conservatives believe this is some "liberal" idea, either.

That's in-the-box, backwards thinking, useless to actually resolving these issues which will only grow worse, especially as nations such as China and India continue to compete for resources. And never mind the pollution issue which isn't going to improve with time - I don't know about you, but I think vehicle emissions are horrendous and lowers living standards.

I grew up with science-fiction and the idea of a clean, unlimited energy source. But that shouldn't be science-fiction...it should be science-FACT. That is progress, as opposed to attempting to wring out every bit of fossil fuel from every possible source, such as ANWAR.

Scratch all that, and let's finally, for once and for all, just move away from fossil fuels.

If we had started two decades ago, with a serious intent instead of trying to politicize this into Left-Right issues, we'd possible be in much better shape then we are today. But we'd rather shoot ourselves in the foot, over and over again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jimmy Carter is a great man--humble beginnings, eventually a Senator, then top dog in the U.S.

What grade to get on your paper?

Carter was never Senator, and he was an awful President.

On this one issue, he was wrong and Reagan was wrong. There isn't any reason why you couldn't follow Reagan's approach (essentially scare the ME into raising oil prices), while at the same time leaving money in place to produce alternative energy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The mark of a true leader is a leader that asks for sacrifice for the greater good.

Asking the citizenry to sacrifice for the greater good is not an uncommon "leadership" trait inside the Beltway. Hell, it's the norm.

No, the mark of a true leader is his own sacrifice for the greater good.

Let me know when you see a politician doing that, and we'll be celebrating a snow day in Hades. :laugh:

I partially agree with you FlyinO, Chachie, and ChoclateCitySkin. I do think Jimmy Carter's heart was in the right place. I'm honestly a bit too young, and too uninformed on the specific circumstances of his presidency to form a complete opinion on him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reagan's action concerning Carter's energy initiatives is the best thing Reagan did.

How, in any rational world, was it intelligent to cut funding to an energy source that could provide us with a clean, free (as far as its source) power source?

Please explain further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What grade to get on your paper?

Carter was never Senator, and he was an awful President.

On this one issue, he was wrong and Reagan was wrong. There isn't any reason why you couldn't follow Reagan's approach (essentially scare the ME into raising oil prices), while at the same time leaving money in place to produce alternative energy.

Got an "A". He was in the Georgia state senate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What grade to get on your paper?

Carter was never Senator, and he was an awful President.

On this one issue, he was wrong and Reagan was wrong. There isn't any reason why you couldn't follow Reagan's approach (essentially scare the ME into raising oil prices), while at the same time leaving money in place to produce alternative energy.

:laugh: ,yeah,I'm curious as well.

Actually he was a State Senator

I still regret backing Carter to this day,ya'll can blame him for my Neo-con leanings and my opposition to Obama(Carter reincarnated :2cents: )

Added ...I see he already clarified the senator bit,and that he is from Georgia explains the A ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone else here notice that all the kids that never lived through Carter think he's great, while those of us actually suffered through his presidency think he's the worst president of the 20th century?

Think schools aren't programming the kiddies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only plan he had was to try and divert us to untested alternatives, solar being one

You mean like we're doing today? Man what a crazy idea! I'd hate to be able to use cellulose as fuel today instead of years from now. That would just suck, I mean then there might not even be such a great food crisis! That would be terrible!

30 years later solar isn't even a good option, although it's a hell of a lot better than in Carters day.

It may not be an option as far as powering a city, but a little deduction in fuel consumption by one house multiplied by millions would put a huge dent in oil consumption would it not? Math is funny like that.

His only other solution was to lower the thermostat in winter

Yeah, thats a TERRIBLE idea, encouraging people to take initiative to save money and reduce consumption. Hmm, whats that Bush just said about carpools?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carter met the problems by starting sweeping oil-reduction reforms, including creation of the Cabinet-level Department of Energy.

He began spending millions of dollars researching alternative sources for electrical power, including solar power. He got utilities to cut their use of oil for electricity and ramp up their use of natural gas or coal.

"Up until Carter, we were getting about 20 percent of our electricity from oil generation," said Jay Hakes, director of the Energy Information Administration under Carter and an authority on modern presidents and oil. "And post-Carter, it went down to about 3 percent."

Carter insisted that U.S. automakers build more fuel-efficient cars, with a goal of 27.5 miles per gallon over the following decade - a requirement passed under Gerald Ford but put into force by Carter.

Anyone else here notice that all the kids that never lived through Carter think he's great, while those of us actually suffered through his presidency think he's the worst president of the 20th century?

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while. Carter was right here. Not that hard to see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see you didn't like the "common dreams" leftist link, so you went one down

Let me be clear. Carter was the largest **** up in the presidency in the 20th century.

Jimmy Carter Jr is coming..................

NO.

Think about what you just said... Bush is the largest **** up in the 20th century. Seriously, Bush has been so bad that a candidate like Obama has a legit chance to be president... Thanks Bush... god help us... :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...