Clearly all of it is just arugula-eating, elitist San Francisco values.

Btw, McCain offered a similar suggestion that we save energy by turning out our lights when we're not using them. I don't recall Democrats losing their shit over it and mailing out lightbulbs with McCain's name on them claiming that this was his energy plan.

These days, Republicans love losing their shit, just like they will lose the election and McCain will lose his marbles.

McCain voted against every alternative energy bill. Comprehensive, balanced energy policy my ass.

Bush, on the wonders of the free market:

"What’s interesting, however, is that people are plenty wise about how to conserve. You’re making the choices about whether you want to drive a little extra more or not drive extra more."

Drive a little extra more. Or not drive extra more. Oh god.

Sounds like we misunderestimated his grammatical prowess.

It's no wonder Republicans think Obama is TOO articulate. They're used to supporting this buffoon the past 16 years.

Hito, Beeble: the points is that Obama makes himself sound silly comparing opening up drilling with a personal driving habit - one has nothing to do with the other. I don't care what kind of context it was, his remark was clearly targeting drilling supporters (of which apparently he is one!)

As for McCain - the man is a fool, and I care very little for his policies. I don't understand how many people were enamored with this guy for so long - he's always been a populist. Maverick my ass.

Initially, his response was exactly what I said it was: a suggestion to somebody asking for an "individual" solution. His conflation of drilling and tire pumping was only after a barrage of "Obama Tire Gauge" smears, and he continues to speak as such in response to those continuing smears. I have no problem with that.

What exactly is he? One thing worse than a populist: somebody that can't decide whether he is one.

Populism always rubs me the wrong way, Obama's included. This $1,000 energy rebate idea is stupid.

I'm pretty sure the oil drilling remark was a part of the quote that caused the initial "outrage".

I've said it before that I am a reluctant Obama supporter. I have to poke my eyes out when reading about his policies.

If Obama had said, "and therefore we do not need to drill and that is my stance on policy" you MIGHT have a point. But as it was, he said that you could save more from properly inflating your tires than we could get from offshore drilling. That is a relevant comparison given the current media focus on drilling and it happens to be accurate.

As I mentioned before, in terms of ACTUAL policy, Obama seems indifferent to offshore drilling since it won't really have any significant impact. He has stated that he may allow Republicans to open up the remaining acres for drilling if the Republicans will stop blocking alternative energy legislation.

Right, it was a valid numerical comparison, not a policy prescription. It's like saying "if you turned your lights off, you'd save more power than produced by three reactors," an innocuous truism.

The "gang of ten" compromise bill he supports will only allow expanded offshore drilling in the Gulf and certain parts of the East Coast. West Coast drilling is still off the table, as is the ANWR.

Exxon-McCain '08

Massive solar panels being built in central California:


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/15/business/15solar.html?ex=1376539200&en=f71913619379cdc8&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

I don't understand the practicality of building large solar facilities. The whole point of solar power is decentralized production on individual rooftops. You know, the kind that Carter put up and Reagan tore down because patriotic Americans should be wasteful.

I think you need both. There are going to be places where solar is impractical to install, and there are going to be people who can't afford solar panels on their own - although I personally would like to see the govt chip in and help out those who can't afford them.

That's great.

Also, IKEA has announced that they will start selling solar panels for home use.

http://www.inhabitat.com/2008/08/11/ike ... e-horizon/

In most cases, it's not an issue of solar equipment being unaffordable. Most people that can afford them and should buy them choose not to, due to lack of understanding of capital investment. Same goes with insulation upgrades and the whatnot.

It's the same reason why huge wind farms are installed - not every place where you could install a solar panel is going to be economical. In fact, the places with the highest potential solar production tend to be uninhabitable (deserts, anyone?).

I agree, though decentralized wind power is a bit trickier than solar rooftops. A number of cities, from San Diego to San Antonio, are very favorable to solar power.

Solar power can also be used for hot water heating -- Congress should mandate half the country's laundromats to install solar water heaters. They pay for themselves quickly.

Hawaii has already taken this route, although I disagree with their mandating the use of solar water heaters in private homes. But definitely for businesses like laundromats and hotels with laundry facilities, I think it's a necessary step.

Just because something is easy to install, doesn't mean it makes economical sense. Solar panels aren't exactly cheap, you know.

That's a contradiction. If solar water heaters pay for themselves and there are no other impacts, why should Congress mandate them?

Depending on the use and location, solar is cost-competitive.

The economics assumption that human beings are fully rational is untrue. You should know that. Just as terrorism depends upon the asymmetry of fear between various forms of death; many people have poor intuitive grasp of the psychological asymmetry between a large capital investment such as solar water heating (which may have a terrific NPV), and the routing, smaller expenditures on electricity. (which may be very expensive especially with electricity rate inflation)

I believe government has the ability to inform people better in the event of such asymmetries. The same applies to superior insulation, a vastly cost-effective investment that many people woefully neglect in favor of less effective and more costly options.

Fine. But not everywhere. In fact, it would be interesting to see some data on this.

Wow, so many words to explain a very simple idea: humans are dumb and they need the government to tell them what to do.

Let's go over this:
1. You keep saying that investment in solar water heaters pays for itself fairly quickly. Why wouldn't a cheaper electric heater that is powered by solar from the grid be cheaper then? Surely the huge solar plant in the desert can provide power more efficiently than a solar heater in a cloudy area, for instance, event after we consider the extra transmission costs, etc. What kind of returns on investment are we talking about? Are they better than investing in renewable energy stocks? If so, by how much?

2. I agree that there are certain things that an average person could do to make their utility bill smaller (proper insulation, higher efficiency AC units and heaters, etc. come to mind). However, I think you are deluding yourself if you think that an average homeowner is ignorant of those issues. People are aware of these issues, and a lot of people do spend the money on these things (either by way of upgrading current houses, or demanding that new houses are energy-efficient). For the ones that don't, I would venture to say that there are more pressing needs (like not getting evicted).

Maybe the government has some role in educating the people (although I resent the presumption). It definitely doesn't have any role in mandating these things.

Why do you think people are not rational yet at the same time think that government, made up of people, is rational or at least able to "inform people better in the event of such asymmetries"?

As an aside, what does "Just as terrorism depends upon the asymmetry of fear between various forms of death" mean? Sounds like a dissertation for a PhD student.

I'm pretty sure he means that people are irrationally afraid of terrorism, which is responsible for 3,000 American deaths in the past 15 years vs., let's say, deaths from alcohol which is responsible for 100,000 American deaths per year. The government spends a lot on fighting terrorism and nothing on fighting alcoholism.

It's a red herring, of course, but it sounds good, especially when veiled in such fancy terms.