Many conservatives subscribe to the fallacy that we need fossil fuels or else our standard of living will be drastically lowered. Since fossil fuels were a major part in a strong increase in our standard of living, they conclude that a reduction in fossil fuels will bring us back to the horse and buggy days. completely oblivious to progress.

“Progressives believe that government can help make things happen that haven’t already.”

It’s a rational belief too, since there are demonstrated success stories – from energy efficiency standards in California to CAFE standards. If the government sets standards, or a price is placed on carbon, some the best minds and resources are allocated towards new technologies. It’s not a guarantee, but the chances of technological improvements are increased greatly.

Which are we, thruth seekers or comfort seekers? That is an important question we should ask ourselves when trying to figure our how the world really is. In some and many things that always doesn’t matter, but when it comes to screwing up the planets atmosphere on which we want future generations to live, it’s a little important.

Only in North America do the lines seem to be drawn so rigidly.

And for Carl… Where are the rolling blackouts in countries like Denmark and Sweden where renewable energy already comprises a significant part of power generation? How have they managed to do what you suggest the US cannot do? Are they smarter, or more industrious?

I could see where it’s easy to think that statement means electrical power from the grid except all sources of energy which might include heating of buildings with wood or something like that.

Just as a side comment, 100 percent of all buildings are solar heated and 97 percent of all heating in buildings is solar heating. If it wasn’t for the sun, the earths temperature would sink to 2.7 degrees Kelvin (270 degrees below Celsius, 460? degrees below zero fehrenheit, about 5? degrees Rankine) Of course, the solar heating (sun) is what makes the day 15-20 degrees warmer than the night and summer warmer than winter.

I’ve thought it’s useful to think of that when designing or at least advocating the use of passive solar for keeping a house warm. My goal when designing a passive heating system is to use solar energy collecting, heat storage and house insulating so I don’t need other heating systems for that last 3 percent that everybody gets 97 percemt of naturally anyway.

So when we talk about energy use, we many times only talk about those things that we are measuring. There isn’t talk about the whole system which might include natural capital, negawatts and alot of other things.

And thank you for thinking that all our energy needs are supplied by a grid, and not a gas station or pipe.

The premise of your argumentation is faulty. It relies on one form of energy.

Oh, and I’m with Bob Wallace except for the fact that the GF doesn’t want to live off-grid. I was on the design team for two super-insulated and highly green buildings, one commercial and one residential, and consulted on another. It can easily be done. WA State code – using IBC – is very energy-thrifty. R-19 walls are a great start, as is whole-house fan idea.

HTH.

Best,

D

McCain’s answers are expect later, so we can compare and contrast those progressives and conservatives.