Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Friday, November 25, 2011

That's Trillion with a "T"

Posted by on Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 2:36 PM

The Republican presidential candidates are all calling for drastic cuts to EPA regulations, in order to compete with China. Most of the candidates say that Obama's focus on creating green jobs is misguided.

To those candidates, I offer a link to a story headlined, "China unveils £1 trillion green technology programme."

 

Comments (21) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
One would be hard-pressed to come up with a clearer articulation of the what a "race to the bottom" looks like than the suggestion that we should attempt to match China's negligent environmental regulations in order to stay competitive.
Posted by Proteus on November 25, 2011 at 2:50 PM
Will in Seattle 2
Romney wants to outsource more US jobs to his comrades in Red China.

FACT.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on November 25, 2011 at 2:50 PM
Tiffany 3
Well, there goes our chances of competing in green technology. We still (sort of) have airplanes and software going for us... i guess.
Posted by Tiffany http://www.facebook.com/tiffany98122 on November 25, 2011 at 2:51 PM
Timrrr 4
And that's £ as in 1 GBP = $1.56 US DOLLARS too!
Posted by Timrrr on November 25, 2011 at 3:16 PM
gloomy gus 5
Despite his lovely talk, Obama's lack of focus on actually creating jobs over the last couple years, green or no, is biting him hard in the ass, and will until November. I love the guy, appreciate a president giving at least lip service to growing a green economy, and support his candidacy over the field of bobbleheads opposing him. But he handed them this opportunity by his own inattentiveness, and deserves every bit of the roasting he'll endure over unemployment.
Posted by gloomy gus on November 25, 2011 at 3:17 PM
6
@5,

is the president supposed to wave a magic wand to negate the skullfuckery brought on by the bush administration and continued obstructionist skullfuckery by present GOP douchenozzles?
Posted by skullfuckersoftheworldunite on November 25, 2011 at 3:26 PM
merry 7
God, I love it when these idiots put their collective foot in their collective mouth.

Must be getting pretty full in there by now!!
Posted by merry on November 25, 2011 at 3:41 PM
8
This is the China so well known for its sparkling clean air, abundant and well managed clean water supply, extensive and well planned urban public transportation systems, and transparent governance ... ?
Posted by Calpete on November 25, 2011 at 4:14 PM
Supreme Ruler Of The Universe 9

Well, we would have a leg up on them if Obama and his henchman Steve Chu had not eviscerated the DOE's Hydrogen Initiative. Hydrogen technology is now rolling into production in the Economies of Korea, the countries of Europe and yes, China. Bush funded DOE to the tune of $1 billion.
Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe http://yrihf.com on November 25, 2011 at 4:24 PM
10
What @1 and @8 said.

And, as to @9's Hydrogen Technology: unless you're talking about fuel cells, there is no "hydrogen technology".
Posted by Approaching 40 in LA on November 25, 2011 at 4:34 PM
11
Well, h2o technology. Steam is pretty clean last time I checked...
Posted by Random Poster on November 25, 2011 at 4:48 PM
TVDinner 12
You know what we need to do? We need to build a bunch more SUVs. That'll save the economy!
Posted by TVDinner http:// on November 25, 2011 at 4:56 PM
rob! 13
In total agreement with gus @5. I would further argue, as he might or might not, that Obama has squandered a major opportunity to stake out natural common ground with conservatives: we ought to seek energy independence as a major policy goal, to avoid culpability for further human-rights disasters at the hands of tin-pot dictators in the Middle East, Africa, Central America, and wherever else significant oil/natural-gas reserves are discovered or made available through "technological advancements" such as fracking (and the temptation to start wars for strategic advantage in regions that could host oil/gas production or pipelines/ports). STIPULATIONS: allow offshore drilling only with state-of-the-art technology required, such as blowout preventers that actually work and continual regulatory oversight by an agency staff that doesn't have industry cum running down its legs; require full remediation and realistic trust funds for same; disallow offshoring of corporate headquarters for any company wanting to sell its oil/gas products in the U.S. (directly or indirectly) and require repatriation and fair taxation of all revenues both domestic and overseas, in addition to requiring all overseas producers selling in the U.S. to meet updated U.S. environmental laws in all production and distribution facilities. I could go on. But it should be possible to sell energy independence as a patriotic goal and duty.

Even in my jagoff ultra-conservative rural town, the grammar school has a roof full of solar panels, as do the county fairgrounds exhibition buildings and grandstand; our local quarter-billionaire built a barn in back of his wood-shingled Gormenghast just so he'd have the flat surface to put in 40,000 watts of solar panels; and at least half a dozen of our retirees have put 4-6 kW of solar panels up.

@10, not true or not applicable, your choice. I've had an up-close demo of the BMW 7-series hydrogen internal-combustion vehicle; with the availability of modern sensors and engine-control computers (airflow, timing, injection volume, etc.), hydrogen works great with existing piston/crankshaft engines and is safer than gasoline: if the tank ruptures, hydrogen vaporizes and rises, as opposed to gasoline drenching and immolating vehicle occupants. Moreover, distributed rooftop solar works well with home-based electrolysis/hydrogen-compression units to supply your motor vehicles without the need for a national network of service stations. All the connectors and safety protocols have been developed and tested in Iceland, which uses surplus geothermal electricity to produce hydrogen motor fuel; it's a bit like filling a propane tank but with better-engineered connectors and more automation/idiot-proofing. And your home-produced hydrogen can also run your water/space-heating boiler if you don't drive or if you deliberately size your system to produce surplus.

Who knows whether plug-in hybrids with their expensive batteries or home-produced hydrogen for motor fuel will prove cheaper, but both are optimally powered by distributed rooftop solar.
More...
Posted by rob! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZBdUceCL5U on November 25, 2011 at 6:57 PM
dwightmoodyforgetsthings 14
@9 (&11 too)- Hydrogen technology is only as green as the power used to make the hydrogen usable. Fuel cells are batteries, hopefully really great batteries, but they don't unleash fresh energy. Like steam, you've gotta put energy in to get energy out.
Posted by dwightmoodyforgetsthings http://www.reddit.com/r/spaceclop on November 25, 2011 at 7:14 PM
dwightmoodyforgetsthings 15
@13- You say Obama squandered an opportunity to work with conservatives, but it wasn't there. The conservatives don't want energy independence at the cost of lowering their profit margins. Your stipulate regulation and oversight, they hate that more than they love the good of America.

Obama and the congressional Democrats squandered a chance to ram shit through during his first two years.
Posted by dwightmoodyforgetsthings http://www.reddit.com/r/spaceclop on November 25, 2011 at 7:21 PM
Supreme Ruler Of The Universe 16
#10, 11, 14

Caltech's Killer Idea: Artificial Leaves That Turn Sunlight Into Fuel

Caltech is creating artificial leaves that can produce fuels directly from sunlight, water and carbon dioxide to fuel cars and heat homes. The artificial leaf prototypes are composed of thin sheets of plastic embedded with light-absorbing materials that can absorb sunlight and water vapor, and emit hydrogen or methanol.


http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arch…
Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe http://yrihf.com on November 25, 2011 at 7:49 PM
rob! 17
@15, he certainly would have gotten fierce opposition from the energy industry and the arch-conservatives, but he could have sold the patriotic-goal aspect to a hell of a lot of Joe Sixpacks.

And he could have rammed through the necessary legislation early on, as you rightly point out. The regulation and oversight needed wouldn't have been that onerous (the EU does pretty much everything we'd need to do), and cauterizing all the corruption in the Minerals Management Service/Interior Dept. could have been a big PR winner too.
Posted by rob! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZBdUceCL5U on November 25, 2011 at 8:00 PM
dwightmoodyforgetsthings 18
@16- That's solar power.
Posted by dwightmoodyforgetsthings http://www.reddit.com/r/spaceclop on November 25, 2011 at 10:10 PM
19
@13 and @14: Having both physics and chemistry degrees (and being a liberal conservationist), I'm quite aware of what is needed to make hydrogen a viable fuel source. And the only "hydrogen technology" that we have, other than simply burning it, is used in fuel cells.

As @14 pointed out, we have no hydrogen gas readily available on Earth, and hydrogen combustion is only as clean as the method used to produce your H2...which, from an economic standpoint, means burning coal. Shit, even my chemistry students can demonstrate why using methane, ethane and propane are better alternatives to our continued reliance on gasoline. I simply get tired of idiots spouting off about "let's burn hydrogen and solve the whole problem". Sorry to have lumped you in there.

In my opinion, over the next five years the government should mandate the conversion to natural gas (we have an ample supply and it is about 20% cleaner than gasoline, from a CO2 perspective) in our long-distance autos and trucks and get into the business of manufacturing cheap, reliable electric vehicles geared for trips under 100 miles.

Even continuing to burn coal (at about 93% efficiency, compared to a car's efficiency of about 35%) would cut our CO2 emissions by nearly half. Utilizing that, as well as our country's natural gas resources, would cut our dependency to the Middle East and helps us economically, as @13 said. Of course, long-term production of electricity would probably have to shift towards nuclear, if global warming is the main issue....but everyone goes batshit when the word nuclear comes up.
Posted by Approaching 40 in LA on November 26, 2011 at 7:36 AM
20
If we copied France's health care and health insurance system wholesale, we could provide excellent coverage and care to 100% of the population and save ...

C'mon; estimate how much we'd save. Just take the 18%.1 of GDP we spend on health care, subtract the 11.2% of GDP the French spend, and apply the difference to our $14.7 trillion GDP.

(Hint: the answer has a "t" in it ... and it's PER YEAR.)
Posted by PCM on November 26, 2011 at 8:24 AM
21
@20: As a socialist I have to say: amen.
Posted by Approaching 40 in LA on November 26, 2011 at 11:44 AM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy