Comments by Jesse Parent Subscribe

On Time for rational risk evaluation of energy sources – natural gas versus nuclear

Again, I present those 'obstacles' not to deter nuclear hopes, but simply to point out that for nuclear advocates to successfully gain substance, particularly within the USA, the 'affiliated' implications of current hydrocarbon dominance must be addressed.

Nuclear advocates must show how nuclear power can benefit the country in non-energy ways, particularly at a time like this, where the longest war in US history is leaving the public weary. Combine this with fiscal conservativism, reducing the debt, and real "energy security" by moving away from hydrocarbons - that would be a powerful approach. 

On Time for rational risk evaluation of energy sources – natural gas versus nuclear

Bottom line: yes, nuclear needs a much bigger voice in US energy mix. Why it doesn't, as I'm sure we all can tell, is because there isn't any money in externalities of nuclear power. It's not related to military contquest or geostrategic squabbles - at least not in the same way that hydrocarbon caches are. Nuclear energy would rather lend towards self reliance and, comparatively, isolationist foreign policy -- rather than dominant neoconservative trends in recent administrations. 

I say this often, but, in my opinion it is particularly true for nuclear power: the problem isn't the science; the real challenge is the vast implications for politics, money flows, and the inertia of Big Oil/(&Gas) in terms of their influence over policy. 

So yes, to that end, I agree that nuclear supporters must be much more vocal. I continue to see the United States as being particualrly not conducive towards any sort of innovation or development in nuclear power - especially, unfortunately, something like Thorium. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't hope for such. I would suppose a place such as India, or perhaps even Austrailia (and Germany, or Japan), would be much more inclined and 'properly motivated' for inspired nuclear innovation.

- Jesse Parent

On U.S. to Become Net Energy Exporter

I think an interesting and somewhat overlooked part of the assessment is: "and 45 percent a reflection of improving energy efficiency in the United States, primarily from the Obama administration’s new fuel economy standards for cars.”

Will the new fuel standards really such an impact on US exports?

Compared to other idealisms, the fuel efficiency aspect of the report may actually have (relatively) more significance. I'm curious to see how that plays out.

- Jesse Parent

On 24 Hours of Reality: Webcast Event Starts Tonight

I admit, I personally looked into this but nothing snagged my attention. Had I seen this post and the mention of regional panels, I may have tried to check that out more. I wasn't entirely sure what the message or takeaway was, but maybe that's because I already have a sense of climate change. 

 @Jim: Unfortunately, I don't think Hurricane Sandy (alone) is going to leave enough hurt to enact change...

On Oil-drilling Boom Puts the US in Global Driving Seat

Yes, in short, I think there is a bit of starry-eyed idealism here.

Everyone has such big hopes about their preferred source or method of supplying energy. What strange field this is. 

On Is Gas Rationing Superior to Raising Prices for Consumers?

Or a car that can use gas or electric, right?

I think advocating for dual-fuel garages is a bit of a luxury, but, something to shoot for if you can manage it. The more general principle of diversifying (and modernizing) views of energy and preparedness, though, I can support fully. This also leads into grid relationships, personal and communal power generation/transporation, and the like. 

-

Also. "are unlikely to sway Americans from their innate sense of fairness" - it made me chuckle a little to read that - something the West or America likes to think about itself. Either in terms of Amercia through non-Western eyes, or even America through its own lens of domestic economics or, yes, even energy matters, I would be hesitant to say that there are innate characteristics, especially one such as fairness. But that is another soapbox for another time.

On Australia Could Reach 85 Percent Renewables by 2050

We'lll have to see how Australia plays out. White papers and what happens in reality can sometimes have a wide margin between them...

On CNN Bans Term "Frankenstorm" for Warming-Driven Monster

  so why exactly is CNN banning the term Frankenstorm? 

On What are the Final Obama and Romney Energy Plan Changes?

I think instead of plans, it should be more "preferred messages marketed to electorate, particularly key swing states'. 

The diservice is that the general population of the US still gets treated with kid gloves and don't have to deal with complicated issues. 

On An Abdication of Leadership: Climate Change Absent on the National Political Stage

That's a very good point/perspective, one that is definitely not considered or mentioned enough. 

On An Abdication of Leadership: Climate Change Absent on the National Political Stage

As I've argued before (1), I don't put this one on Obama, or Romney, or the moderators. It's just not there in American discourse, be that thanks to dominant industry interests or media bias - or lack of care. Still,  climate skeptics in the US (&UK) get significantly more space in newspapers than other countries (2). . .

America doesn't care enough - that's how I feel most of the time. I've worked on the polls and called lots of people, even in the 'liberal northeast', and it's just not there. Especially with the lingering economic situation, the dominant perception and message has been that climate is legitimate to take a back seat.

Blaming the candidates, especially in this case, is I think fairly well off base. Perhaps it's time to consider bringing in a third party to US politics, rather than two major parties, and everything being funneled into 'the most generalized issue'? 

As a geopolitical analyst, I also have to say that I'm amazed that a large part of the voting block, and the 'representative' parties of the US, see foreign policy as a non-issue this election. Again, I'm not thrilled with Obama and Romney arguing over who is the best bed of coal - one of the biggest take-aways from energy discussion from the debates. But they are just pitching to their market - and that market is decided by Americans one way or the other. So they (we) need to do something about that; complaining about the candidates in this case dodges the inherent responsibility that the US citizenry has. 

America was founded on the idea that people should demand a responsive government. Either they have it and they don't care about climate change, or they don't have a it and don't want to work for it. 

- Jesse 

1 No Talk Of Climate Change at the Presidential Debates? The US Has A Long Way To Go…

2 Newspapers in UK and US give climate sceptics most column inches

On An Abdication of Leadership: Climate Change Absent on the National Political Stage

Isn't the obvious answer economic tumult and the desire for the democrats to have a big win with healthcare, which sapped all the 'political capital'? 

I don't necessarily think that's a satisfactory course of events, but, that's what I've heard cited before.