Whoa, back that truck up a bit, Brian. :wink: I was discussing current and shortterm future realities, and you launched into your noble-yet-idealistic futereworld. And, as Croaker says there's indeed going to be much kicking and screaming, and as Justin points out, political kicking and screaming before today turns into your tomorrow. Probably half a life time's worth at quickest. I'm trying to center on what we have in store in the relative present.

Oil companies like ExxonM, Shell and BP are not going to go quietly or quickly into that good night, and neither will their political influences. GWB is going to look out for them, period. These companies are not at all like Enron, which was basically an unsoundly run scam. The big oil companies are neither unsoundly run nor scams. And, like's been pointed out, consumers aren't going to wake up any morning soon and say, oh boy, conservation and life change is here. Death to big oil! Not even if they have to pay $2.50 or $3.50 a gallon. My guess is that they will sooner cry to the government to subsidize the cost to them in our energy policy. I'm still waiting for the shoe to drop when they have to start paying for electricity grid rebuilding as a "benefit" of deregulation. hehe :o

We are IMO the beginning of the final stage of "real" free markets for utilities/energy (to which I say thank god if it does come true). What a time to deregulate and promise lower competitive costs when each type of energy needs so much additional infrastructure investment, but, you know, maybe that was known all along. I mean, how couldn't that be known to all these experts? That part maybe is like Enron. I mention other types of energy along with oil here because it's part and parcel of same. My guess is that the real free market cost of the future of these items will become so high that the public will demand it be subsidized, or that the governement goes ahead and includes this as part of policy before any major ugliness ensues. This was what I was getting at about us controlling world oil. If this is the "cheap" oil, fine. But, subsidizing expensive exploration (via bail-outs, tax credits, or nationalization even, as last resort) is a more likely possibility, and one that IMO is more realitistic in the near term than what you have described (long term, way off).

Personally I bet GWB and his successor(s) will give ExxonM et al the greatest amount of time possible to shift their product and purpose, ie, years, even decades perhaps. He and his successor(s) will give them the greatest possible time to wring the rest of their profit from the stock market and the consumer, too. The consumer will be the first to bend over, of course. :wink:

Barbara:

I'm sure your scenario, with its more gradual transition, would be the political reality were it physically possible, but it ain't. We will see the oil production peak in 2010 or thereabouts. Afterwards, no matter what anyone does about it, oil production will decline. If oil demand continues to increase, the price of oil will shoot through the roof, we will have spot shortages such as occurred in the 1970s, and the transition will begin then if it hasn't already, willy-nilly, come Hell, high water, or any Bush successors you care to name or even fantasize over.

The Bush clan and the corporations wield enormous power in this country, but not sufficient power to repeal the laws of physics or those of economics. And I'm sure Bush would, if possible, give Exxon and its competitors more time to save their bacon, but that is physically not doable. Bush isn't even a dictator (yet), let alone God.

Actually, the oil companies already realize this, and are diversifying, and redefining themselves as energy companies. British Petroleum was the bellwether in this regard.

It will not take "half a lifetime's worth" of kicking and screaming to get there, because it can't.

Barbara:

I'm sure your scenario, with its more gradual transition, would be the political reality were it physically possible, but it ain't. We will see the oil production peak in 2010 or thereabouts. Afterwards, no matter what anyone does about it, oil production will decline. If oil demand continues to increase, the price of oil will shoot through the roof, we will have spot shortages such as occurred in the 1970s, and the transition will begin then if it hasn't already, willy-nilly, come Hell, high water, or any Bush successors you care to name or even fantasize over.

The Bush clan and the corporations wield enormous power in this country, but not sufficient power to repeal the laws of physics or those of economics. And I'm sure Bush would, if possible, give Exxon and its competitors more time to save their bacon, but that is physically not doable. Bush isn't even a dictator (yet), let alone God.

Actually, the oil companies already realize this, and are diversifying, and redefining themselves as energy companies. British Petroleum was the bellwether in this regard.

It will not take "half a lifetime's worth" of kicking and screaming to get there, because it can't.

Originally Posted by Barbara

Oil companies like ExxonM, Shell and BP are not going to go quietly or quickly into that good night, and neither will their political influences. GWB is going to look out for them, period. These companies are not at all like Enron, which was basically an unsoundly run scam. The big oil companies are neither unsoundly run nor scams. And, like's been pointed out, consumers aren't going to wake up any morning soon and say, oh boy, conservation and life change is here. Death to big oil! Not even if they have to pay $2.50 or $3.50 a gallon. My guess is that they will sooner cry to the government to subsidize the cost to them in our energy policy. I'm still waiting for the shoe to drop when they have to start paying for electricity grid rebuilding as a "benefit" of deregulation. hehe :o

I'm not sure how much of electricity grid re-building is going to get done with the current prevalence of NIMBY-ism. Everybody wants cheap energy but nobody wants to look at the infrastructure. So even if we agree to subsidize these improvements, chances are they will be held up indefinitely due to local opposition.

As a case in point, permit me to present the battle going on in my hometown over a proposed off-shore windfarm

Cape Cod has the highest energy costs in Massachusetts. You would think that people would be delighted at the chance to bring those costs down. Apparently not, if the signs popping up on lawns everywhere are any indication.

Would the project ruin the view? My opinion is no, not unless you were right on top of the turbines. I am almost willing to lay money down that unless it is winter and below freezing, the atmosphere is going to be sufficiently murky out there that you won't be able to see the turbines at all.

Even if I am mistaken, it doesn't seem to be all that offensive. Sure, it's not beautiful. But then again, the power plant on the Cape Cod Canal that continuously belches out a stream of smoke isn't all that pretty either, and pollutes the air far more than a windfarm would.

We'll have to see how this shakes down, but I hope the Cape Wind people don't give it up because we really need something like this.

Originally Posted by Barbara

Oil companies like ExxonM, Shell and BP are not going to go quietly or quickly into that good night, and neither will their political influences. GWB is going to look out for them, period. These companies are not at all like Enron, which was basically an unsoundly run scam. The big oil companies are neither unsoundly run nor scams. And, like's been pointed out, consumers aren't going to wake up any morning soon and say, oh boy, conservation and life change is here. Death to big oil! Not even if they have to pay $2.50 or $3.50 a gallon. My guess is that they will sooner cry to the government to subsidize the cost to them in our energy policy. I'm still waiting for the shoe to drop when they have to start paying for electricity grid rebuilding as a "benefit" of deregulation. hehe :o

I'm not sure how much of electricity grid re-building is going to get done with the current prevalence of NIMBY-ism. Everybody wants cheap energy but nobody wants to look at the infrastructure. So even if we agree to subsidize these improvements, chances are they will be held up indefinitely due to local opposition.

As a case in point, permit me to present the battle going on in my hometown over a proposed off-shore windfarm

Cape Cod has the highest energy costs in Massachusetts. You would think that people would be delighted at the chance to bring those costs down. Apparently not, if the signs popping up on lawns everywhere are any indication.

Would the project ruin the view? My opinion is no, not unless you were right on top of the turbines. I am almost willing to lay money down that unless it is winter and below freezing, the atmosphere is going to be sufficiently murky out there that you won't be able to see the turbines at all.

Even if I am mistaken, it doesn't seem to be all that offensive. Sure, it's not beautiful. But then again, the power plant on the Cape Cod Canal that continuously belches out a stream of smoke isn't all that pretty either, and pollutes the air far more than a windfarm would.

We'll have to see how this shakes down, but I hope the Cape Wind people don't give it up because we really need something like this.

Brian:

Government subsidized electricity for over 60 years, so oil will get their subsidy for some brief period at the least. Yes, the big companies are diversifying, but in five years none of them will be even half dependent as to profits or operations on alternate sources. Then there's the auto industry and all sorts of different and many connected industry segments, all dependent on the oil model. The bottom line "physics" of it are that as long as there are still untouched reserves to tap on this Earth, there will be a valiant fight to suck the crap out of them. There will also be exploration innovations which will evolve to help offset the expense, too. The best we can hope for is a concerted and powerful effort to mature the alternate energy sources while the conventional drones on, and to encourage the model to adapt. Not an overnight or even a realistic ten-year goal.

I really have nothing to fantasize about in this, that's just the way the world works. Look at how we've accepted the growth of the insurance industry into a sky-high expense that's now a fixed cost, too.

Smokers pay through the mouth; drinkers, too. People said all the logical and right things about these commodities, yet they sell. We just keep ingesting them and pay those higher prices and sin taxes. Croaker complained about his $.47 increase in his quart of beer, but he didn't quit drinking. Yes, the smoking industry has taken hits and yes, smokers in American have been reduced by half, from 50% to 25% but it took 40 years. I see oil-based consumption as a habit just as addictive and as hard to quit or even limit drastically.

Brian:

Government subsidized electricity for over 60 years, so oil will get their subsidy for some brief period at the least. Yes, the big companies are diversifying, but in five years none of them will be even half dependent as to profits or operations on alternate sources. Then there's the auto industry and all sorts of different and many connected industry segments, all dependent on the oil model. The bottom line "physics" of it are that as long as there are still untouched reserves to tap on this Earth, there will be a valiant fight to suck the crap out of them. There will also be exploration innovations which will evolve to help offset the expense, too. The best we can hope for is a concerted and powerful effort to mature the alternate energy sources while the conventional drones on, and to encourage the model to adapt. Not an overnight or even a realistic ten-year goal.

I really have nothing to fantasize about in this, that's just the way the world works. Look at how we've accepted the growth of the insurance industry into a sky-high expense that's now a fixed cost, too.

Smokers pay through the mouth; drinkers, too. People said all the logical and right things about these commodities, yet they sell. We just keep ingesting them and pay those higher prices and sin taxes. Croaker complained about his $.47 increase in his quart of beer, but he didn't quit drinking. Yes, the smoking industry has taken hits and yes, smokers in American have been reduced by half, from 50% to 25% but it took 40 years. I see oil-based consumption as a habit just as addictive and as hard to quit or even limit drastically.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

...for moving from A to B is in fact the primary task of driving...

Moving the car (and its contents) from point A to point B is the primary purpose of driving. Brian said the occupants.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

...for moving from A to B is in fact the primary task of driving...

Moving the car (and its contents) from point A to point B is the primary purpose of driving. Brian said the occupants.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Barbara:

I'm sure your scenario, with its more gradual transition, would be the political reality were it physically possible, but it ain't. We will see the oil production peak in 2010 or thereabouts. Afterwards, no matter what anyone does about it, oil production will decline. If oil demand continues to increase, the price of oil will shoot through the roof, we will have spot shortages such as occurred in the 1970s, and the transition will begin then if it hasn't already, willy-nilly, come Hell, high water, or any Bush successors you care to name or even fantasize over.

The Bush clan and the corporations wield enormous power in this country, but not sufficient power to repeal the laws of physics or those of economics. And I'm sure Bush would, if possible, give Exxon and its competitors more time to save their bacon, but that is physically not doable. Bush isn't even a dictator (yet), let alone God.

Actually, the oil companies already realize this, and are diversifying, and redefining themselves as energy companies. British Petroleum was the bellwether in this regard.

It will not take "half a lifetime's worth" of kicking and screaming to get there, because it can't.

I'm not sure how long it will take to get to the multimodal, energy-efficient future Brian envisions-- could be 20 years, or as long as 80 (i.e. until the NEXT 4T). However, the energy companies are indeed diversifying, at least some of them are. <y understanding is that one of the leaders in hydrogen fuel and infrastructure development is British Petroleum. BP have even built their vision of the future of energy into their marketing-- I'm sure everyone has noticed that most of their newer gasoline stations have been christened "BP Connect" stations. In today's "Get mine and get out" business climate, such a move suggests that Brian's energy future is closer at hand than one might think.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Barbara:

I'm sure your scenario, with its more gradual transition, would be the political reality were it physically possible, but it ain't. We will see the oil production peak in 2010 or thereabouts. Afterwards, no matter what anyone does about it, oil production will decline. If oil demand continues to increase, the price of oil will shoot through the roof, we will have spot shortages such as occurred in the 1970s, and the transition will begin then if it hasn't already, willy-nilly, come Hell, high water, or any Bush successors you care to name or even fantasize over.

The Bush clan and the corporations wield enormous power in this country, but not sufficient power to repeal the laws of physics or those of economics. And I'm sure Bush would, if possible, give Exxon and its competitors more time to save their bacon, but that is physically not doable. Bush isn't even a dictator (yet), let alone God.

Actually, the oil companies already realize this, and are diversifying, and redefining themselves as energy companies. British Petroleum was the bellwether in this regard.

It will not take "half a lifetime's worth" of kicking and screaming to get there, because it can't.

I'm not sure how long it will take to get to the multimodal, energy-efficient future Brian envisions-- could be 20 years, or as long as 80 (i.e. until the NEXT 4T). However, the energy companies are indeed diversifying, at least some of them are. <y understanding is that one of the leaders in hydrogen fuel and infrastructure development is British Petroleum. BP have even built their vision of the future of energy into their marketing-- I'm sure everyone has noticed that most of their newer gasoline stations have been christened "BP Connect" stations. In today's "Get mine and get out" business climate, such a move suggests that Brian's energy future is closer at hand than one might think.

Barbara:

It doesn't matter if oil is subsidized (actually, it and fossil fuels are already subsidized), because there won't be enough of it flowing to meet the demand. That's why the price will rise. Subidies might hold the price down artificially, but they won't do anything about gas lines, heating oil shortages, and brownouts.

Certainly every effort will be made to pump the rest of the oil, but the flow from a half-tapped field slows down, no matter what you do to try to speed it up. Pumping the second half of the field's reserves is increasingly costly and effort-intensive. We are never going to pump all of the oil there is. It will become too expensive for use as a fuel long before we reach dry rock.

Believe me, I've looked into this pretty extensively, and what you describe government and the oil industry doing is physically impossible. They won't do it because it can't be done.

Not sure what you mean about "maturing" renewable energy. Are you referring to the myth that these technologies aren't market-ready? On the contrary, they are, in fact, in use, and the only reason they aren't competitive with fossil fuels is because fossil fuels receive a $20 billion annual federal subsidy. Technologies are also available for improving energy efficiency. They aren't in as wide use as they should be because oil has been kept cheap, reducing the market appeal of energy savings. But they're still coming out. Look at the hybrid autos. And when we had the electricity mini-crisis here in California, compact fluorescent light bulbs sold big time. There is a lot we can do, that we aren't doing, lacking the proper motivation. That motivation is coming, and since we will already be deep into a Crisis era when it does, we will hop!

Much of this stuff is going to happen a lot sooner than you think.

Barbara:

It doesn't matter if oil is subsidized (actually, it and fossil fuels are already subsidized), because there won't be enough of it flowing to meet the demand. That's why the price will rise. Subidies might hold the price down artificially, but they won't do anything about gas lines, heating oil shortages, and brownouts.

Certainly every effort will be made to pump the rest of the oil, but the flow from a half-tapped field slows down, no matter what you do to try to speed it up. Pumping the second half of the field's reserves is increasingly costly and effort-intensive. We are never going to pump all of the oil there is. It will become too expensive for use as a fuel long before we reach dry rock.

Believe me, I've looked into this pretty extensively, and what you describe government and the oil industry doing is physically impossible. They won't do it because it can't be done.

Not sure what you mean about "maturing" renewable energy. Are you referring to the myth that these technologies aren't market-ready? On the contrary, they are, in fact, in use, and the only reason they aren't competitive with fossil fuels is because fossil fuels receive a $20 billion annual federal subsidy. Technologies are also available for improving energy efficiency. They aren't in as wide use as they should be because oil has been kept cheap, reducing the market appeal of energy savings. But they're still coming out. Look at the hybrid autos. And when we had the electricity mini-crisis here in California, compact fluorescent light bulbs sold big time. There is a lot we can do, that we aren't doing, lacking the proper motivation. That motivation is coming, and since we will already be deep into a Crisis era when it does, we will hop!

Much of this stuff is going to happen a lot sooner than you think.

Originally Posted by Zola

As a case in point, permit me to present the battle going on in my hometown over a proposed off-shore windfarm

One of the problems is that almost all forms of 'renewable' energy have this in common: low energy density. That is, the energy they tap may be very large in overall magnitude, but it spreads out over huge areas and volumes of space.

Sunlight, for ex, is limited to an absolute max of 1.4 kilowatts/square meter at our distance from the Sun, and that's if you gather the energy in space. The atmosphere knocks out a third or so, even on a clear day, and nightfall cuts off the power for hours at a time. Even during the day, in morning and evening hours the slanting rays reduce the available power.

So gathering solar power requires big collector areas. You can either swivel them to track the Sun, adding mechanical complexity and cost, or make even bigger areas to make up for the loss of a stationary collector. Since affordable methods of solar collection currently tend to run around 10% efficient or so, that means you need an even bigger collector.

(The very best photovoltaic cells run at 25% or better, but they ain't cheap.)

The same is true of wind power, in another way. To generate serious power, even modern, high-tech windfarms like the ones being proposed for Hawaii, or the ones under construction in Europe, need a lot of big, tall, visible turbines. Additional complexity (and cost) are added by the need for steady power flows. The wind isn't constant. It's quite possible to compensate for that, but it's not cheap. While the overall price per kilowatt-hour is comparable to fossil fuel, the scale isn't, and that neglects the extra cost of stablizing the power flow.

Tidal power? Limited availability, and very large environmental footprint.

Ocean-current power? Same deal.

Ocean-thermal power? Now that one is interesting, it's potentially reasonably compact, the available power supply is huge, the pollution problem isn't too bad, but it's expensive to install, and requires that the power be transmitted or shipped somehow from open ocean to the continents. Not cheap.

Implementing renewable energy on a scale large enough to eliminate our oil dependency will be very obtrusive, requiring an infrastructure far larger than fossil or nuclear power systems would require.

Originally Posted by Zola

As a case in point, permit me to present the battle going on in my hometown over a proposed off-shore windfarm

One of the problems is that almost all forms of 'renewable' energy have this in common: low energy density. That is, the energy they tap may be very large in overall magnitude, but it spreads out over huge areas and volumes of space.

Sunlight, for ex, is limited to an absolute max of 1.4 kilowatts/square meter at our distance from the Sun, and that's if you gather the energy in space. The atmosphere knocks out a third or so, even on a clear day, and nightfall cuts off the power for hours at a time. Even during the day, in morning and evening hours the slanting rays reduce the available power.

So gathering solar power requires big collector areas. You can either swivel them to track the Sun, adding mechanical complexity and cost, or make even bigger areas to make up for the loss of a stationary collector. Since affordable methods of solar collection currently tend to run around 10% efficient or so, that means you need an even bigger collector.

(The very best photovoltaic cells run at 25% or better, but they ain't cheap.)

The same is true of wind power, in another way. To generate serious power, even modern, high-tech windfarms like the ones being proposed for Hawaii, or the ones under construction in Europe, need a lot of big, tall, visible turbines. Additional complexity (and cost) are added by the need for steady power flows. The wind isn't constant. It's quite possible to compensate for that, but it's not cheap. While the overall price per kilowatt-hour is comparable to fossil fuel, the scale isn't, and that neglects the extra cost of stablizing the power flow.

Tidal power? Limited availability, and very large environmental footprint.

Ocean-current power? Same deal.

Ocean-thermal power? Now that one is interesting, it's potentially reasonably compact, the available power supply is huge, the pollution problem isn't too bad, but it's expensive to install, and requires that the power be transmitted or shipped somehow from open ocean to the continents. Not cheap.

Implementing renewable energy on a scale large enough to eliminate our oil dependency will be very obtrusive, requiring an infrastructure far larger than fossil or nuclear power systems would require.

H.C.:

The proper use of solar power is not in a centralized power-plant scenario, but decentralized with solar panels on top of buildings. Otherwise, you're right -- but that's another reason why improved efficiency is so crucial. We're wasting a lot more energy than we're using; we need to reverse that ratio in order to be able to use renewables properly.

H.C.:

The proper use of solar power is not in a centralized power-plant scenario, but decentralized with solar panels on top of buildings. Otherwise, you're right -- but that's another reason why improved efficiency is so crucial. We're wasting a lot more energy than we're using; we need to reverse that ratio in order to be able to use renewables properly.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Not sure what you mean about "maturing" renewable energy. Are you referring to the myth that these technologies aren't market-ready?

No, I know they are market-ready, AND market-available. I meant that the MARKET needs to mature. Demand needs to move more towards approaching saturation, which involves the motivation you refer to.

This time frame is the only area in which I am doubtful of your posit. I'm prone to agree more with Kevin's timeframe, although I can very much see this consumer switch and saturable use taking place closer to the next High instead of it waiting for the next Crisis, especially if we follow this Empirist bent we seem to be starting globally. Control gives us a bit more time to switch energy sources on our terms with less chaos and instability.

We took on many institutional infrastructural and technological advances as a nation during the last High that the average Joe was astounded by (and many feared we couldn't handle, or shouldn't). Three come to my mind, as to the public's skeptism at the time about them being successful: the interstate highways, scientific research/medical breakthroughs in vaccinations against fatal diseases, and the space program. Alternate energy source saturable use would qualify in my book as another one of these wonders of a High.

That motivation is coming, and since we will already be deep into a Crisis era when it does, we will hop!

We've reached stalemate on discussing further, but it was an interesting discourse, as always, Brian. Thanks. :wink:

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Not sure what you mean about "maturing" renewable energy. Are you referring to the myth that these technologies aren't market-ready?

No, I know they are market-ready, AND market-available. I meant that the MARKET needs to mature. Demand needs to move more towards approaching saturation, which involves the motivation you refer to.

This time frame is the only area in which I am doubtful of your posit. I'm prone to agree more with Kevin's timeframe, although I can very much see this consumer switch and saturable use taking place closer to the next High instead of it waiting for the next Crisis, especially if we follow this Empirist bent we seem to be starting globally. Control gives us a bit more time to switch energy sources on our terms with less chaos and instability.

We took on many institutional infrastructural and technological advances as a nation during the last High that the average Joe was astounded by (and many feared we couldn't handle, or shouldn't). Three come to my mind, as to the public's skeptism at the time about them being successful: the interstate highways, scientific research/medical breakthroughs in vaccinations against fatal diseases, and the space program. Alternate energy source saturable use would qualify in my book as another one of these wonders of a High.

That motivation is coming, and since we will already be deep into a Crisis era when it does, we will hop!

We've reached stalemate on discussing further, but it was an interesting discourse, as always, Brian. Thanks. :wink:

I read a number of rock singers will not perform on September 11 this year.

I read a number of rock singers will not perform on September 11 this year.

On the subject of energy efficiency and environmentalism in the 4T, here is Howard Dean's policy statement on the environment. A portion quoted below, usual disclaimers:

As President, I will bring my commitment to our environment to the White House, guided by six principles:

First, environmental issues cannot be isolated from other issues. President Bush and his henchmen try to sweep the environment under the rug; I will bring it back into the light. Environmental policy cannot be separated from other issues such as energy, trade, or economic policy. This is one reason that I will ask Congress to elevate the Environmental Protection Agency to cabinet status immediately, and not drag the process out with contentious debates about restructuring. We should take this step not only to reaffirm our commitment to the environment to ourselves, but to demonstrate it to the world.

Second, a healthy environment and a healthy economy go hand in hand. The right wing radicals want us to believe that we must choose between a healthy environment or a healthy economy. I believe the opposite is true. We need to protect our environment to keep our economy healthy. Ask fishermen whether they need a healthy ocean to survive. Ask loggers whether they need healthy, vibrant forests. From my experience as a governor, I know it can be difficult to bring business interests and environmentalists together. But I also know that the greatest gains are made when we succeed in doing just that.

Third, America should lead the way toward international environmental cooperation. In an act of diplomatic and environmental petulance, President Bush gave the back of his hand to the Kyoto Protocol. In doing so, he squandered much of America?s moral authority. On issues such as global warming, population growth, and overfishing, we have missed opportunities to demonstrate America?s ability to lead. Pollution doesn?t stop at the borders and neither should environmental policy.

Fourth, the environment is a health issue. Too many cities have smog so thick that some days children have to go indoors for a breath of fresh air. To help clear the air, as President, I would direct that adoption of health-based standards for air toxins be accelerated. Further, I would immediately crack down on those companies that violate New Source Review requirements rather than broaden the loophole that allows them to spew pollution as President Bush has done as a favor to his big campaign contributors in the energy industry. And I will ask Congress to close the loophole entirely. As a doctor, I believe clean air, clean land, and clean water are the right of all Americans. It could be considered part of my health care plan.

Fifth, America is capable of making incredible gains in efficiency and renewable energy technologies. That?s why I will set ambitious goals for renewable energy, energy efficiency, and fuel economy standards. I call on American automakers to embrace change, to see the new opportunities ahead, rather than waste time and energy resisting progress. The Japanese, instead of opposing California?s strict emissions requirements, rolled out hybrid gasoline-electric automobiles that are on the road today. In fact, Toyota is already rolling out the second generation of its Prius model. I believe that American automakers should not only catch up, they should become efficiency leaders and market leaders. Under a Dean Administration, they will get the support they would need to make this a reality.

Sixth, environmental leadership must be based on foresight. America?s environmental policies have too often been limited by the politics of a four-year presidential term, resulting in ineffective, short term policies that amount to a band-aid on a broken bone. My administration will craft comprehensive environmental policies that keep the long-term in mind; policies that proactively tackle the problems we know are looming decades, even centuries down the road. Addressing environmental threats such as global warming and over-fishing today will pay dividends to future generations of Americans.

(Emphasis added.) If Dean wins the presidency, and acts upon this, that should be sufficient evidence that not only are we in a Fourth Turning but the regeneracy has arrived.

On the subject of energy efficiency and environmentalism in the 4T, here is Howard Dean's policy statement on the environment. A portion quoted below, usual disclaimers:

As President, I will bring my commitment to our environment to the White House, guided by six principles:

First, environmental issues cannot be isolated from other issues. President Bush and his henchmen try to sweep the environment under the rug; I will bring it back into the light. Environmental policy cannot be separated from other issues such as energy, trade, or economic policy. This is one reason that I will ask Congress to elevate the Environmental Protection Agency to cabinet status immediately, and not drag the process out with contentious debates about restructuring. We should take this step not only to reaffirm our commitment to the environment to ourselves, but to demonstrate it to the world.

Second, a healthy environment and a healthy economy go hand in hand. The right wing radicals want us to believe that we must choose between a healthy environment or a healthy economy. I believe the opposite is true. We need to protect our environment to keep our economy healthy. Ask fishermen whether they need a healthy ocean to survive. Ask loggers whether they need healthy, vibrant forests. From my experience as a governor, I know it can be difficult to bring business interests and environmentalists together. But I also know that the greatest gains are made when we succeed in doing just that.

Third, America should lead the way toward international environmental cooperation. In an act of diplomatic and environmental petulance, President Bush gave the back of his hand to the Kyoto Protocol. In doing so, he squandered much of America?s moral authority. On issues such as global warming, population growth, and overfishing, we have missed opportunities to demonstrate America?s ability to lead. Pollution doesn?t stop at the borders and neither should environmental policy.

Fourth, the environment is a health issue. Too many cities have smog so thick that some days children have to go indoors for a breath of fresh air. To help clear the air, as President, I would direct that adoption of health-based standards for air toxins be accelerated. Further, I would immediately crack down on those companies that violate New Source Review requirements rather than broaden the loophole that allows them to spew pollution as President Bush has done as a favor to his big campaign contributors in the energy industry. And I will ask Congress to close the loophole entirely. As a doctor, I believe clean air, clean land, and clean water are the right of all Americans. It could be considered part of my health care plan.

Fifth, America is capable of making incredible gains in efficiency and renewable energy technologies. That?s why I will set ambitious goals for renewable energy, energy efficiency, and fuel economy standards. I call on American automakers to embrace change, to see the new opportunities ahead, rather than waste time and energy resisting progress. The Japanese, instead of opposing California?s strict emissions requirements, rolled out hybrid gasoline-electric automobiles that are on the road today. In fact, Toyota is already rolling out the second generation of its Prius model. I believe that American automakers should not only catch up, they should become efficiency leaders and market leaders. Under a Dean Administration, they will get the support they would need to make this a reality.

Sixth, environmental leadership must be based on foresight. America?s environmental policies have too often been limited by the politics of a four-year presidential term, resulting in ineffective, short term policies that amount to a band-aid on a broken bone. My administration will craft comprehensive environmental policies that keep the long-term in mind; policies that proactively tackle the problems we know are looming decades, even centuries down the road. Addressing environmental threats such as global warming and over-fishing today will pay dividends to future generations of Americans.

(Emphasis added.) If Dean wins the presidency, and acts upon this, that should be sufficient evidence that not only are we in a Fourth Turning but the regeneracy has arrived.

I sort of agree with you on that. It would be a regeneracy but it isn't necessarily the definite path that we must take. I must admit, if I had to pick two people I'd like to see as GC, they'd be Bush (and 2009 replacement) and Dean. I know this seems weird since they are politically very different, but they both have the tone of a GC, and their platforms involve change. I just want some party to win already, so an agenda can be enacted. IMO, either could be enacted and it would be for the better, as opposed to no agenda being enacted.

I sort of agree with you on that. It would be a regeneracy but it isn't necessarily the definite path that we must take. I must admit, if I had to pick two people I'd like to see as GC, they'd be Bush (and 2009 replacement) and Dean. I know this seems weird since they are politically very different, but they both have the tone of a GC, and their platforms involve change. I just want some party to win already, so an agenda can be enacted. IMO, either could be enacted and it would be for the better, as opposed to no agenda being enacted.