Category Archives: Energy Party

I knew there was something I liked about that guy from New Mexico

Sounds like one of the Democrats is ready to switch to the Energy Party. Hey, the more, the merrier. Meanwhile, ol’ Fred Thompson’s gettin’ all feisty with Michael Moore:

AP-ON THE 2008 TRAIL, 3RD LD-WRITETHRU
Democratic candidate Bill Richardson unveils plan to cut oil dependence, greenhouse gases
Eds: ADDS reference to Web site of Thompson video.
By JENNIFER TALHELM
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON
(AP) – Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson on Thursday
laid out his plan for a dramatic shift in the way the U.S. uses energy,
proposing to all but end the country’s reliance on oil and reduce
greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2040.

Invoking
President Kennedy’s call for the Apollo space program, he said the
nation needs a "man-on-the-moon" effort to develop technologies that
will cut energy costs and halt global warming.

"I am issuing a
call to action, for Congress, the energy industry and the public," he
said in a speech to the New America Foundation. "I am calling for a new
American revolution _ an energy and climate revolution."

Richardson’s
plan encourages people to drive electric and plug-in cars, promotes
public transportation and calls for increasing fuel economy standards
to 50 miles a gallon by 2020 from about 25 miles per gallon now.

He
also wants to fund programs to develop wind, solar and biomass energy,
and create a market-based system requiring utilities to emit less
pollution.

Richardson has promoted his energy plan this week in campaign stops in California and elsewhere.

He
says his experience as energy secretary under President Clinton and as
the current governor of New Mexico give him a leg up on other
candidates, who also have rolled out energy plans.

The
Democratic front-runner, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, also has
called for an "Apollo program" on energy. Illinois Sen. Barack Obama
recently lectured automakers for investing in bigger, faster cars while
dependency on oil is jeopardizing U.S. security and the global
environment. And Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd wants to double the
average fuel economy for each automaker to 50 mpg by 2017.

____

WASHINGTON
(AP) _ Fred Thompson, the not-quite-yet presidential candidate, is
getting flattering buzz on the Internet. Now he’s returning the favor,
and piquing more interest in the process.

In a blog to be
posted on Pajamasmedia.com on Friday, the "Law & Order" actor and
former Tennessee senator praises the Internet as a way to send a
message beyond the Washington beltway.

Thompson has shown
himself to be well-schooled in the ways of the Internet. He knows what
sites are saying and he knows where to go to push his ideas.

This
week he engaged in a spat with producer Michael Moore over Moore’s
movie "Sicko," which depicts survivors of the Sept. 11 terrorist
attacks seeking medical care in Cuba. Moore is now under investigation
for traveling to Cuba in possible violation of the Cuban economic
embargo.

Thompson questioned Moore’s trip. Moore rebutted with
a challenge to debate, archly noting that Thompson has been described
as a fan of Montecristo cigars from Havana.

In a video posted
on Breitbart.tv, Thompson shot back. Sitting in a leather chair in his
home study, he slowly puffs from a cigar and reminds Moore that the
Cuban government once thwarted a documentary filmmaker by putting him
in a mental institution.

"Mental institution, Michael, might be something you ought to think about," he says.

The
clip was shot with a small video camera and Thompson came up with his
own script, said Mark Corallo, his part-time spokesman. Simple and
cheap, it’s getting plenty of viewers.

"Whether or not the
Internet can elect any particular candidate in any particular race,
it’s clear that all of you and many friend across the blogosphere and
the Web are part of a true information revolution," Thompson writes in
his Pajamasmedia posting.

Pajamasmedia CEO and co-founder
Roger Simon said, "If he does run, and I suspect he’s going to, he is
going to be the most Web-savvy candidate yet."

Though Thompson offers no overt hint of his intentions, he signs off saying: "Hopefully, we’ll continue this conversation."

___

Associated Press writer Jim Kunhnhenn contributed to this report.

I just realized what it was that rang a bell for me at the top of that story. Last election cycle, Jennifer Talhelm was writing for The State, down in our newsroom. Nice kid. Young lady, I mean.

Puttin’ on the heat

3 Replies

We’re hearing a lot from groups that are using the wide-open presidential race to try to twist Ramsburgh_2 candidates’ arms (gently, but insistently) to talk seriously about the issues that have been most assiduously avoided in this
country: health care, education, and the like.

Today, it was a group pushing the issue dearest to our hearts here at Energy Party
HQ.

Visiting more or less under the auspices of Conservation Voters of South Carolina were the following:

John Ramsburgh (upper right), Project Director, Conservation Voters of South Carolina
Navin Nayak (below left), Global Warming Project Director, League of Conservation Voters
Ann Timberlake (below right), Exec. Dir., Conservation Voters of South Carolina
Cary Chamblee (bottom left), lobbyist, Sierra Club and SC Wildlife Federation

Their message about the need for a rational, comprehensive energy policy is a most timely one, in three ways:

Voters across the spectrum are ready to demand real answers from candidates.
You can’t win the War on Terror without it.
It’s necessary to save the planet.

Tomorrow’s letter today!

2 Replies

Why wait until tomorrow to read this letter on the Wednesday page? Such fine Energy Party-style sentiments should not have to wait in the queue:

Net metering part of sound energy policy
Our country needs to adopt an energy policy aimed at promoting energy independence and reducing greenhouse gases.
We can all work together to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by buying more fuel-efficient cars and conserving energy.
Alternative energy resources such as solar and wind power are proven technologies that should be encouraged for use in our state right now.
The only thing standing in our way is the approval of net metering by the S.C. Public Service Commission.
Net metering allows for the interconnection of privately owned solar and wind power generation systems with the grid. This measure is essential to giving all citizens of South Carolina a choice in how we power our homes and businesses and will encourage efficient energy use across the state.
The end result could be higher-paying jobs, new distribution centers and more alternative energy businesses operating in South Carolina. We might even look at resurrecting the electric car as a much more efficient, non-polluting means of transportation to and from work.

DANIEL E. COLLINS
Columbia

Of course, he doesn’t actually mention the Energy Party, but I think he’s a likely member.

Who resurrected the electric car?

118 Replies

As part of my continuing quest to stay within shouting distance of at least a passing acquaintance with recent film, I watched the following three (on DVD of course):

"All the King’s Men."
Fairly entertaining, but bizarre. I don’t
think there was a single Southerner in it, much less a Louisianan, and
the accents were all over the place. Why couldn’t they have gotten
James Carville to play Sugarboy? Of course, Stark’s boys wouldn’t have been Cajun. He could have been Tiny Duffy, then, instead of Tony Soprano filling that part. It didn’t really disappoint, but my expectations weren’t high.
My expectations were very high for "The Departed," and I’m happy to report that they were exceeded. This may be Scorcese’s best, and that’s say a LOT. Yeah, it’s another gangster film, but it’s as different from "Goodfellas" as "Goodfellas" was from "Mean Streets." And it completely deserves to be mentioned alongside them. I’ll say no more about it; I don’t want to spoil anything. See it.
"Who Killed the Electric Car." Maybe not as great esthetically as "The Departed," but still a must-see. The conspiracy of interested parties that together ended California’s experiment in creating a market for electric cars is enough to turn the most sensible person into Oliver Stone. To see the wonderful vehicles GM and other major automakers created to meet that demand, then to see them crush the movement, then round up every one of the vehicles for destruction — even though the leaseholders (they never let anybody buy one) desperately wanted to keep them — is pretty powerful stuff.

But imagine my surprise, after seeing that, to go down to party on St. Patrick’s Day in Five Points and find — an electric car.

Not a mere hybrid, mind you, but a car that you can plug in anywhere, a car that uses NO fossil fuels whatsoever. (At least, not unless your electricity is provided by coal, which is too often the case.) Hybrids have their advantages, of course, with their unlimited range. But there’s such an inspiring purity about the electric car. If we could all drive those, with electricity provided by nukes, the Energy Party dream would be here.

In case you’re interested: The vehicle is called a Zap car (ZAP stands for Zero Air Pollution), and are being promoted locally by Dr. F. Steven Isom. His Website is EVCarolina.com, and the phone number on his business card — which proclaims "Electric Vehicles NOW!" — is (803) 233-1700.

Cool stuff.

Energy Video III: Bill Barnet

24 Replies

Bill Barnet is the former business leader who helped start the education accountability movement before he ran a write-in campaign at the very last minute for mayor of Spartanburg … and won.

He’s one of those guys who doesn’t need his job, and in fact doesn’t need politics at all. He does it to try to make the world a better place. That’s why he came to see us with Joe Riley to talk about global warming.

Energy Video II: Joe Riley

Energy Video I: Lindsey Graham

9 Replies

This is the first of three videos I’m highlighting from recent interviews with politicians who would be excellent candidates for the Energy Party, talking about our No. 1 issue.

This interview was largely, but not entirely, the basis for my column of Feb. 25.

Best line:

"The French — 80 percent of the power needs of France are met by the nuclear power industry. They are the model. I never thought I’d hear myself say this. They are the model; we should follow the French when it comes to nuclear power."

Pontificating Putin piece

32 Replies

Pontificating Putin pushes Graham

toward energy platform

“Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force in international relations — military force…. Primarily the United States has overstepped its national borders, and in every area…. They bring us to the abyss ….”
— Vladimir Putin

By Brad Warthen
Editorial Page Editor
VLADIMIR PUTIN is pushing Lindsey Graham toward the Energy Party, and I feel fine.
Sure, that anti-American diatribe at the Munich security conference on Feb. 10 was the biggest step back toward Cold War since Nikita K. took off his shoe, but I like to look at the bright side.
Putin_munich
“The biggest threat to everybody in the room wasn’t al-Qaida, or Chechen rebels, it was the United States,” our senior senator said in an interview last week, marveling at the neo-Stalinist’s international demagoguery. “It was a blatant pitch at trying to divide Europe and the United States, because he sees us as weak.”
“Which takes us to energy independence,” I said.
“Which takes us to energy independence,” he nodded.
I like the way this guy thinks.
As regular readers know, I recently called for the creation of a new political party, one that would get serious about our greatest strategic vulnerability, while saving the world from global warming at the same time.
Sen. Graham’s still a Republican, but we might have to nominate him anyway.
He had thought plenty about this stuff before Munich, but that one intemperate speech (followed immediately by an Iranian dissertation on democracy that seemed to come from some other planet) jacked up his resolve. “Whatever doubts I had about us being energy-independent were put away,” he said. “I don’t think he ever made that speech unless he sensed weakness.”
So how do we get strong?
He says the United States government must use economic incentives to encourage hybrid technology, biofuels, hydrogen, nuclear power — pretty much any viable alternatives that we can embrace that neither strengthen the worst bad guys in the world nor pump out more greenhouse-promoting carbon dioxide.
He would promote the transition to hybrid cars — and eventually hydrogen — on three levels:

Research. Grants for improving the technology.
Wholesale. Tax incentives to encourage manufacturers to make the new vehicles.
Retail. More tax incentives for individuals to buy them.

He makes sure to point out that South Carolina can play a pivotal role in all this. We’re well positioned to help develop the technologies for a hydrogen economy. Meanwhile, we can grow and process switchgrass and other plants for biofuels.
He sees “a whole economy in energy-efficiency,” one that South Carolina could help lead.
Beyond that home-team advantage is the bigger picture: “It is in our long-term national security interest to get people thinking about alternatives.”
It’s not just cars. We need to make more efficient, cleaner refrigerators, computers and every other item that uses electricity.
As for that, “Most of our power comes from coal-fired plants.” We need to “give nuclear power the same tax advantage we give solar and wind.” Like those usual green suspects, nukes don’t emit CO2, either.
Expensive, yes, but he’s convinced that the economic cost of global warming is far greater than the 1 percent of gross domestic product that a full transition away from emitters would cost.
So how do we pay for it?
Well, he said, we can’t do it by “cutting waste” in the discretionary budget — what most people think of when they say “federal spending.” There’s just not enough there.
You have to go where the real money is: entitlements. “Change the structure of our debt,” he said. “Give people like me and Joe Lieberman and others some breathing room on Social Security,” room to do the kinds of politically unpalatable things that are necessary to save it without pulling us further into the fiscal black hole.
Can we produce our way out? No. “Yes, there’s gas and oil, but it’s a drop in the bucket,” he said, no matter how deep you drill in the ANWR or offshore. “They’re sort of just one more drink” for the hopeless alcoholic.
What about increasing the gas tax, to promote conservation and raise money for incentives? No. “Gas taxes will put some businesses at a competitive disadvantage with China and India.” Besides, “it’s not progressive.” It hurts the poor.
“The next president of the United States should declare a war of energy independence,” he said, evoking the usual metaphors such as the Manhattan and Apollo projects. We had such a war once against a king. Now we should “declare a war of independence from the dictators and sheiks.”
The next president? So he’s given up on this one? He didn’t say that, but I will. He said President Bush has addressed the issue, but only in a “piecemeal” fashion.
As for Lindsey Graham, he says he’s doing what he can, such as working “with McCain and Lieberman to strengthen the conservation part of their global warming bill.”
But ultimately, he’s just one of 100. “The real megaphone is for the person who’s going to be president.” Does that mean John McCain, his preferred candidate for the GOP nomination? Yes, partly: “He’s led on global warming like no other Republican.” But “I’m urging all the candidates.”
OK, so I didn’t start this discussion. Mr. Putin did. But that doesn’t mean the Energy Party’s not going to grab the opportunity thus created to strengthen national security and save the Earth.
Neither should you. So go ahead. Jump right in.

Graham_002

Well, duh. But good.

3 Replies

This pretty much goes under the "well, duh" category — the idea that architects can have a big impact on our energy uses and global warming…

An interactive national Web cast will educate Upstate architects on the correlation between building designs and global warming.

Local
LEED-certified architect Bob Bourguignon said the event, called the
2010 Imperative, is intended to show the need to decrease greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere.
"Architects hold the key to starting to
reduce greenhouse gases," Bourguignon said. "From the charts I’ve seen,
approximately 50 percent of air pollution is produced by the
electricity demands of buildings."
The goal of the series is to
challenge the industry to focus on creating environmentally conscious
architectural designs to decrease dependence on fossil fuels.

But at least this means that, just in case some architects were unaware of that fact, or (far more likely) weren’t motivated to do anything about it, having this webinar helps eliminate the "didn’t know" excuse.

Emile on board with the Energy Party!

109 Replies

At my request, our own Emile DeFelice considered the new Energy Party, and provided us an update on his doings. I just got it, and it’s going straight to you:

Thanks Brad for inviting me to come back to the blog and weigh in on the Energy Party.
The world can no longer support Economy v. Environment. There must be economic rewards for that which improves the air, water, plants, animals, and soil, and penalties for their degradation. My energy policy prioritizes

1) Conservation,
2) Captured Waste,
3) Local Resources,
4) Non-Local Resources.

Personal responsibility in the form of conservation is our most valuable asset.
Dr. John Mark Dean’s op-ed plea for lower speed limits inspired me to take the challenge in my truck. Three good things from two weeks at 60 — 20% gas savings, less stress, and equally quick trips. Jockeying and tailgating didn’t get me anywhere faster.
Cheap food and cheap oil are intertwined, but most people are unaware. This is why corn-based ethanol proponents have been able to coast unobstructed to questionable ends. Nearly every item in a grocery store has corn in its production pipeline — we consume more corn than the Indians ever did.
Corn-ethanol endangers us by pitting food against fuel. The misguided application of ethanol extends to the car that GM supplies our Agriculture Commissioner. That vehicle—a Chevrolet Avalanche with a corn cob paint job and a 12.5 average mpg–misses the point entirely.
Ethanol-guzzling SUV’s don’t solve the problem of too much fuel consumption. And (see no. 4 above) as a net corn importer already, South Carolina is no Idaho.
Of course, food is The Original Human Energy Issue. I wish someone else here had brought up the energy implications of our food system, and the potential we have to eat our way to a better world. Right now, we have a global industrial monolith that threatens to be our only food system. I’m not advocating that we throw it out. But why must it be our only choice?
Supporting a local food option offers so many opportunities. The beauty is that every person can make choices that improve our personal and collective well being.
Bottom line: Energy Party, count me in.

Brad also asked me to give you guys a quick update on what I’ve been doing since the election. It would have been surprising had I won the race, so no shock or bitterness, just thankfulness for those who helped me and the gratification of seeing so many people get into the message and the potential for agriculture in this state. What a great experience.
My campaign was less about getting a job than getting a job done. Besides getting my farm back in order, I’ve started several projects to improve our local food system–chairing a task force on putting local food in our schools, creating a business incubator for food entrepreneurs, and improving the All-Local Market, now 15 months old — a year round, rain or shine, producer-only market where you can purchase meats, vegetables, dairy and eggs, flowers, breads, soaps and sauces from South Carolina producers. If you haven’t yet, come out sometime and see how a local farmers’ market can work for everybody in our community.
I love my job as a farmer, but my passion for these issues always has and will extend far beyond my farm driveway.

Put Your State On Your Plate!

Emile DeFelice

Bartender’s had it

43 Replies

I‘ve just typed my last good-faith response to someone who refuses to deal with me — or the rest of y’all — in good faith.

As I explained before, we are going to have a serious, grown-up conversation about Energy, whatever it takes. And yet I found myself actually trying seriously to answer this comment from "Doug:"

And by "we" you mean everyone else, right?
Still waiting for a response on whether you plan to take your "tax
the SUV" idea to the automobile dealers who advertise in The State…
or to lobby your bosses for The State to reject advertising for gas
guzzlers.
Also waiting for a response on what kind of cars your family drives…

"Doug" didn’t deserve it — he was being an ad hominem jerk — but I tried to answer him patiently and frankly, without animus. In over 30 years in the news business, I’ve dealt with a lot of jerks, and I’ve told myself to treat them far better than they treat me. I still try to do that, and do it fairly well, with lapses. I have a responsibility as an officer of the company to represent the newspaper in a civil manner.

But this is MY blog, and my patience is at an end.

Anyway, I started out very low-key, and morphed into fed up. To wit:

What kinds of cars do we drive? Old ones. That’s what we can afford. I drive a Buick that was a hand-me-down from my parents. We bought our last NEW car in 1986.
You’re corresponding here with a guy who, until our fourth child was
born, drove a VW Rabbit. My wife drove a Mazda GLC. (Thanks to the lack
of public transit, we had to have two cars for me to get to work and
her to take the kids where they needed to be — but only after they started
school; before that, we made do with just the Rabbit.)
As long as there were just three kids, we could just barely get them
into either vehicle when the whole family went anywhere — two car
seats, and one jammed in the middle. When the fourth came along, we had
to give up the Mazda for a mid-size station wagon. A four-cylinder
mid-size station wagon, which, let me tell you, doesn’t work very well.
That was our last new car.
What I want, and badly, is a Camry Hybrid. I go out to the Toyota place occasionally and lust after them. Trouble is, they cost about four times what I last spent on a car (and more than twice as much as the most I’ve EVER paid for a car), and it’s hard for me to make even my much-lower payments on used cars.
I actually thought we might have been able to come up with enough down payment for one our first new car in two decades (it would have to be new, since they just came out for the 2007 model year). It would be for my wife, as I want her driving something dependable (at the time, I was still driving my ’89 Ford Ranger, which several months ago spontaneously caught fire on the Interstate and died; hence the Buick).
But the one-time infusion of cash I was counting on for that didn’t materialize, for complex reasons that are none of your business.
Come to think of it, none of this is your business.
Something I really don’t understand about the Blogosphere is people who, instead of engaging ideas, waste their typing energy exhibiting very PERSONAL hostility.
There is not a single proposal that I set forth that I would be exempt from. And if you think my income somehow exempts me from the pain, you are nuts. But once again, the necessary information to refute your presumption is none of your business. That’s convenient to your purposes, but it doesn’t benefit the world or our country in the slightest…

At that point, this ceased to be a comment response, and I turned it into this separate post.

What this site is supposed to be about is ideas, not whom you like or dislike. The difficulty in getting people to carry on grownup conversations has brought me very close to dropping the blog altogether as a waste of my and everyone’s time — something that is even scarcer for me than money.

I don’t know how much longer I’ll carry on. But if I’m close to quitting, there is one thing you will see me do first — start eliminating ALL messages that don’t discuss issues and ideas on their actual merits, without all this childish personal animus. THAT might make this a more worthwhile enterprise.

I’ve held off on doing that, and instead tried to make an instructive example of "Mary" by unpublishing "her" most egregious offenses, and explaining to all what I’m doing and why. I don’t mind deleting "Mary" because "she" possibly doesn’t even live in South Carolina (she certainly has no interest in our state, beyond deriding it), hides behind a phony name, and most likely a phony gender — therefore making herself irrelevant to the conversation I’m trying to have with newspaper readers and other who care about our community. One who deals with the world in such bad faith and with such deception does not deserve the courtesies I extend to others who can sometimes be just as hostile and pointless. I would just block ALL "Rosh" comments, except I believe in rewarding good behavior — or behavior that is "good" for "Mary."

But the bartender’s getting fed up. I like it that y’all want to drink what I serve, and have been pleased by the readership numbers. But the rowdiness is still chasing off the respectable folks — and riff-raff like me, too. And I’m not going to let that happen. I’d rather have three or four thoughtful readers than hundreds like Mary.

For that reason, I’m going to start examining every comment with a mind to whether to extend the "Mary" rule to everyone — which I probably will do. I haven’t started yet, though. As soon as I delete anyone but "her," I’ll let you know.

Doing what we CAN do…

8 Replies

Note that today’s op-ed page
deals entirely with issues of central concern to the Energy Party. (Mike Oped_page
was out yesterday, so I picked the content and put that page together myself. Therefore it reflects my obsessions.) It also provides an opportunity to say again what our platform is, and what is isn’t.

Someone who doesn’t think long enough about it might say the two pieces are at odds. Jim Ritchie sets forth his excellent set of initiatives for our state to do its part in promoting energy-efficient buildings, hybrid cars, and such, and Robert Samuelson says beware of politicians announcing grand plans to save the Earth from global warming.

But they actually support each other, and together sort of explain why I take the approach I do in proposing this party.

True, proposals such as "cap and trade" that politicians are likely to get behind (because they see the parade marching that way) will not stop or reverse global warming. Even if you do all the "politically unrealistic" things I propose, the trend will likely merely slow down, and surely not reverse in our lifetimes. Of course, that’s all the reason to do everything we can (and NOT just what we want to do, or think we can afford) to put the brakes on the trend. Otherwise, things get worse, and at a faster rate.

But as Sen. Ritchie makes clear, what we CAN do is grab hold of our energy destiny. What he proposes won’t completely solve the problem, but it’s a damned good start from the perspective of what state government can do. And the broad coalition he’s got behind it is extremely encouraging — not only in terms of Energy issues, but others where we’ve been stymied by partisanship and ideology.

Pragmatism is on the march. Let’s all join. Except, let’s get at the head of the parade and start a new, double-time pace. Otherwise, the battle will be over before this rapidly coalescing army gets to the field — and we all will have lost.

Fixing glitches

11 Replies

We got my column up on line finally, but I was tied up in meetings and such most of the day, so I’m just now getting around to posting the link.

I haven’t posted it as a separate post on the blog, with links, because it repeats so much from the original post upon which it was based. There are some new bits, of course, plus the "Vote for Pedro" allusion in the headline of the print version (how many readers do you suppose got that?). If you want links to anything that’s in the column version, let me know. Otherwise, you can wait for such extra features for when the DVD comes out.

Meanwhile, I got a lot of feedback today from Rotary from people saying they wanted to join my party. Really; they said that. Of course, if the contributions don’t start flooding in pretty quickly, I’m going to suspect that some of them were just being polite.

Seriously, though, the face-to-face feedback I’ve received on my "extreme" proposals has been unusually positive. You know what this tells me? That if an elected leader — or someone aspiring to be an elected leader, would have the guts to step out and push for all these "politically impossible" solutions, the people just might respect that person enough to follow. But until somebody asks them to sacrifice, within the context of a coherent, no-fooling-around strategy for energy independence, they’re not gonna.

Finally, I would have had this up a little earlier, but Typepad was down for a while this afternoon. I would apologize to my loyal patrons for any inconvenience, but it strikes me that I’m not getting a dime out of this and y’all sure aren’t paying for it, so quitcher griping.

Come on in! Join the Party!

20 Replies

Did you read my column today, which for some reason didn’t show up on the Web (I’ll see if I can fix that)? Did it make you want to join the Energy Party? Did it make you want to tell me what the party ought to be doing? Did it make you want to tell me off? Nobody else around here is shy; why should you be?

Whatever your reaction, here’s the place to let me, and the world know about it. Let’s hear it.

A potential nominee for us?

31 Replies

Looks like Sen. Jim Ritchie is angling for the Energy Party’s nomination in the next election. Nice try, Jim, even though the release is light on specifics… (good thing I’ve linked to the actual bills below, which do contain some pretty decent ideas):

PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 31, 2007
Contact: Kendall Robinson
robinsonk@scsenate.org

SENATOR JIM RITCHIE INTRODUCES "ENERGY INDEPENDENCE FOR SC’S FUTURE"
Ritchie Seeks to Create a Sustainable and Energy Independent South Carolina

COLUMBIA, SC – Today, Senator James H. "Jim" Ritchie, Jr. (R-13),
Majority Whip, held a press conference in the South Carolina State House
to announce a series of four bills, collectively entitled "Energy
Independence for South Carolina’s Future." Together, they address
our growing dependence on foreign energy, the rising costs of energy on
our state, the effects of a building’s indoor environment on its
residents, and protecting the beautiful environment for which South
Carolina has become famous.

Joining him at the announcement were fellow colleagues who are
co-sponsoring the legislation and members from prominent state business
and conservation groups. Supporters and co-sponsors include:

Senator Glen McConnell, Senate President Pro Tempore

Senator John Courson, Senate Education Committee Chairman

Senator Phil Leventis

Senator Larry Martin, Senate Rules Committee Chairman

Senator Wes Hayes, Senate Ethics Committee Chairman

Senator Greg Gregory, Senate Fish, Game and Forestry Committee Chairman

Senator Thomas Alexander, Senate Banking and Insurance Committee Chairman

Senator Scott Richardson

Senator Gerald Malloy

Senator Vincent Sheheen

Senator Chip Campsen

Senator Ray Cleary

Senator Nikki Setzler

American Institute of Architects, SC Chapter

Coastal Conservation League

Conservation Voters of SC

Palmetto Conservation Foundation

SC Chapter of the Sierra Club

SC Wildlife Federation

U.S. Green Building Council, SC Chapter

Senator Ritchie said "together, these strategic initiatives will
create a South Carolina that is no longer defenseless against
unpredictable energy costs by establishing strong incentives for private
investors, sustainable construction and environmental standards for
state buildings and our public schools, and new alternative fuel goals
for our state’s transportation fleet.

As a result, no longer will we determine a building project’s worth
merely by what it costs today; instead, we will also focus on how our
buildings affect the well being of the South Carolinians who work and
learn there, its effects on our environment, and the burden each
building’s energy costs imposes on taxpayers."

"This package sets a new course for sustainable construction in South
Carolina. By adopting leading energy efficiency standards, we will
actually save the taxpayers money, reduce energy and water usage, and
improve the interior environment for employees and our school
children," Ritchie said.

"Energy Independence for South Carolina’s Future" is a series of
four bills, listed below:
S. 376: Energy Independence and Sustainable Construction Act of 2007
S. 362: Energy Independence and Sustainable Schools Act of 2007
S. 377: Energy Independence and Sustainable Investment Act of 2007
S. 368: South Carolina Alternative Fuels Act

Senator Ritchie continued, "While this endeavor seeks to relinquish
the Middle East’s control over our energy needs and preserve South
Carolina’s natural resources for our children and grandchildren, it
ensures the proper balance between these goals and the well being of our
economy and the business community. When these bills become law, South
Carolina will be at the forefront of finding meaningful and balanced
solutions to conservation and economic growth. This will enhance South
Carolina’s future as a highly desirable place to live, work and raise
a family."

Several influential associations have already pledged their support to
this initiative, and have written letters of support to members of the
Senate. To obtain a copy of these letters or for more information,
please contact Kendall Robinson at robinsonk@scsenate.org.
###

Out with the UnParty, in with ENERGY!

57 Replies

Nobody’s proposing a comprehensive energy plan, so I guess we’ll have to do it ourselves.

I’ve had this idea percolating lately that I wanted to develop fully before tossing it out. Maybe do a column on it first, roll it out on a Sunday with lots of fanfare. But hey, the situation calls for action, not hoopla.

So here’s the idea (we’ll refine is as we go along):

Reinvent the Unparty as the Energy Party. Not the Green Party — it’s not just about the environment — but a serious energy party. Go all the way, get real, make like we actually know there’s a war going on. Do the stuff that neither the GOP nor the Dems would ever do:

Jack up CAFE standards.
Put about a $2 per gallon tax on gasoline.
Spend the tax proceeds on a Manhattan project on clean, alternative energy (hydrogen, bio, wind, whatever), and on public transportation (especially light rail).
Reduce speed limits everywhere to no more than 55 mph. (This must be credited to Samuel Tenenbaum, who bent my ear about it yet again this morning, and apparently does the same to every presidential wannabe who calls his house looking for him or Inez).
ENFORCE the damn’ speed limits. If states say they can’t, give them the resources out of the gas tax money.
Build nuclear power plants as fast as we can (safely, of course).
Either ban SUVs for everyone who can’t demonstrate a life-or-death need to drive one, or tax them at 100 percent of the sales price and throw THAT into the win-the-war kitty.
If we go the tax route on SUVs (rather than banning), launch a huge propaganda campaign along the lines of "Loose Lips Sink Ships" (for instance, "Hummers are Osama’s Panzer Corps"). Make wasting fuel the next smoking or DUI — absolutely socially unacceptable.
Because it will be a few years before we can be completely free of petrol, drill the ever-lovin’ slush out of the ANWR, explore for oil off Myrtle Beach, and build refinery capacity — all for a limited time of 20 years. Put the limit in the Constitution.

You get the idea. Respect no one’s sacred cows, left or right; go all-out to win the war and, in the long run, save the Earth. Pretty soon, tyrants from Tehran to Moscow to Caracas will be tumbling down without our saying so much as "boo" to them, and global warming will slow within our lifetimes.

THEN, once we’ve done all that, we can start insisting upon some common sense on entitlements, and health care. Change the name to the Pragmatic Party then. Whatever works, whatever is practical, whatever solves our problems — no matter whose ox gets gored. Leave the ideologues in the dust, while we solve the problems.

How’s that sound? Can any of y’all get behind that?

bradwarthen.com

All The News That Gives You Fits