About Social Media Today
Comments by Jesse Parent Subscribe 
On Third Debate: Basic Research Not Enough to Spur Energy Innovation
The first two paragraphs should be quite obvious, especially to "those of us" who are big boys & adults, yes. Why you are attaching that to my remarks about willful ignorance or negligence, I don't know.
As far as the third paragraph, it seems to be more generalized disagreement. Their clean energy efforts are insignificant compared to the US? Alright... I don't see the US as taking an energy leadership role.
On Third Debate: Basic Research Not Enough to Spur Energy Innovation
So you copy & pasted a full article, twice?
That's a bit much.
On Study: ‘One of the Most Significant Energy Events in the Last 100 Years’
Bob, I hear where you're coming from. To that end, I can only encourage you to continue your 'calling out' of Energy Tomorrow / Vote4Energy / Mark Green / etc. They are all advocacy-based sentiments endorsed by the API, and ones that never advocate for less oil or gas develpoment.
I don't think TEC will be inclined to not publish them, as they have, as Henry said, allowed pretty much every type of zealotry possible in favor of one energy perspective over another.
While I'm personally 'put off' by the amount of clout that the API & manifestations have in shaping energy discussion in the US, the only thing I can think of is either ignoring them entirely or challenging them vigorously when it comes up - or pointing out to people who may not know that the creations of such group are, by design, going to be promoting oil and gas development.
At the very least, TEC allows us another avenue to express that.
"These ambiguities typically don't accompany rigorous academic research."
No, they certainly do not.
See my other remarks about 'reports' and 'polls' used by the API.
On Third Debate: Basic Research Not Enough to Spur Energy Innovation
@Miller - The middle east not being in perpetual chaos would be a huge loss for the war economy - don't expect that to happen any time soon. Russia seems particularly stationary. Asia, and some elements of the middle east - look at Masdar, the UAE, Singapore, etc - are winning the future. Even Saudi Arabia is trying to become a leader in solar power.
I don't think caring about carbon footprints is a major concern for many of the most developed nations, yes, becaues of self preservation, and also because it's particularly inconvenient. Yet that climate change is not even on the map in terms of US national discourse, to me, is a litmus test for how far away from substance the US is.
"Until the U.S. economy and un-/under-employment truly return to normal-historic and healthy levels, higher level human needs (self esteem and self actualization), including climate change concerns should not be expected to become a general Public priority."
Yes and no...
The longer climate change is unaddressed, the more severe the debt will be to pay in the future. As it was once said, "calamity cannot be avoided by running away from it" - or pretending like it's not there. Or, "the significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them". The point is, trying to rebuild the national or global economy without dealing with climate change is remarkably short sighted and willfully ignorant.
We're at a time where kid gloves, fairy tells, and easy to digest stories about what we need to do to have a better world need to be discarded. Shrugging off "climate change" as unesssntial, or not vital, is in one sense the very essence of the problem; a very narrow self-image.
- Jesse Parent
On Third Debate: Basic Research Not Enough to Spur Energy Innovation
The middle east not being in perpetual chaos would be a huge loss for the war economy - don't expect that to happen any time soon. Russia seems particularly stationary. Asia, and some elements of the middle east - look at Masdar, the UAE, Singapore, etc - are winning the future. Even Saudi Arabia is trying to become a leader in solar power. /// /
On Spirituality and Science Writing Can Coexist
Understanding inter-relatedness, consequences, and substantiality of impacts is vital, and I believe those are the fronts upon which the battle for the future take place.
On Third Debate: Basic Research Not Enough to Spur Energy Innovation
If the US public can't get (make enough fuss) a question about climate change, and doesn't show any interest in engaging the issue on how to develop energy... it's still playing a back seat. Economic hardships are a time to refocus values, and for all intensive purposes, the US hasn't done that at all - not in the national mindset where it is actually of significance. As such, the US remains in a disadvantageous position in terms of 'winning the future'.
On Energy Debate Scorecard: Gasoline Prices...What the Candidates Should Have Said
In general, I think the gas prices question was a fail. I didn't get the sense that anything said by the candidates would open up people's minds about energy issues in the US. Obama had the courage to say "some jobs won't return to the US...", and that's why investing in other jobs is smart. It's simply too politically unappealing right now to tell the truth: some gas prices will never be seen again... and that's why the US should try to move away from oil.
So what we get, ultimately, is people arguing about who's done more to develop natural gas, and who will be a better friend to US coal.
Ideally, this would have been an situation where there was a real discussion about why the President or the US Dept of Energy doesn't set gas prices - and then referencing many of the points brought up in this article. But, I guess you have to start somewhere, and at least we're talking about energy in a presidential debate.
The US still needs to be treated with kid-gloves, though. No climate change, no harsh talk about gas prices. And so on.
On Is Energy Independence Undesirable?
I generally agree, JB, with perhaps one exception. The first paragraph about oil is very good, and leads into this point which I very much agree with. I actually wonder if the following is the most significant or likely 'gateway' towards creating any sort of energy change/adaptation/evolution within the US:
"The only way to manage our exposure to the politics of the major oil producing regions (including Venezuela) is to follow Director Woolsey's advice to end the oil monopoly on transportation fuels. Natural gas and its alcohol derivatives promise a means to that end."
Transportation will be a keystone for many parts of the US take on energy, even if simply a means by which Americans comprehend energy - 'gas prices'. If it was instead "natural gas prices", or something other than the current pump habits, that might be an avenue for change. If the natgas industry can combine with the transportation & manufacturing industry, that would be a 'revolution' I'd be curious to see. But I want to see more inependent analysis and have some fracking questions answered before I hail such as the way to go (of course).
"Provided the ideologues stop yammering about "putting solar panels and a windmill on every roof" and come to grips with the fact that natural gas displacing coal for power generation has done more to reduce CO2 emissions than renewable energy sources and conservation combined."
But what about all of the above? Put them on there anyway and start hardnessing as much energy as you can. Not everyone is so sure the drop in emissions will remain as significant as it is, but in general I think taking coal out of the mix as much as possible is a good idea. You can't say that in a presidential debate yet, though, at least when coal-job swing states are in the mix.
I think the US should be pushing forwad with solar as much as it can, even with the huge shadow of Solyndra still clouding the metaphorical skies. But I do wonder now if, even from 'an envrionemntalists perspective', trying to encourage a shift from oil to natural gas in the tranportation sector would be a wise first step. Continued dollar votes with hybrids and EVs is important, too.
But why not a natural gas - electric hybrid?
On The Sound Of Climate Silence: Romney And Obama Love Fossil Fuels
I am agitated, but, I've realized that online forums are at best a place to talk about things. The real deal happens in the real world - and it's going to happen with scientists, engineers, and also communites and relationships, eventually pushing for policies that people demand.
As odd as this may sound, there's only so much that posting on a site like this is going to do - and how many of us here (like me) have 'our own blogs' where we spew lofty notions about what the best way forward is. That's great and all, but none of it does anything directly, other than perhaps open up some minds.
If we all spend as much energy and effort in the real world at making positive changes we do on the internets making declarations and condemnations, we'll be in good shape.
On Our Climate War: FRONTLINE's "Climate of Doubt"
I think this quote can be said for many programs that try to address energy and / or climate:
"What really troubles me about the FRONTLINE program last night is that we've lost all foundation for rational, reasonable debate in this country. We have become a nation of blamers and attackers. Anything we don't agree with is shouted down rather than reasonably argued against. It happens on both sides of the issue and good people are getting hurt in the process."
I've commented on this a great deal, and my position continues to evolve. The part of me that wants to be 'cool and detached' says that this is a natural process that will take place as various competing contexts and frameworks for how to even understand these issues play out.
The advocacy part of me says that there has to be a very, very strong push to try to keep expanding the realm of perception here. I don't think humans 'generally' are very good at un-reduced concepts, or over-lapping, inherently multidisciplinary issues. Superstitions and other kinds of abstract explanations creep in a lot in such cases. What's more, and in agreement with you, the nature of 'discussing serious issues" in the US is laughable quite often, and perhaps even more often particularly ineffective. There are a lot of people and forces to blame for this divisiveness.
The one agreement that can be made is that there needs to be a forum for serious dialogue, and I suppose in a small way TheEnergyCollective is actually trying to afford that here.
From an analysts perspective, it is difficult to choose the right amount of cynicism; believing that dominant forces and base comprehensions will win out - knee-jerk reactions, vs the more complicated and broad 'possibilities'.
I suppose my latest thought about this is that there is really very little 'free market competition' about ideas like this; it's generally a reduction of two or three forces/sides at play, and you have to have an allegiance to one side and see it as the truth.
It seems to take a very special situation to create 'open' discussion, where it's not treason if you're wrong, or have dueling propaganda machines cluttering things. I think the unfortunate situation of the person who really cares about energy or climate is that, if you really want something significant and meaningful to happen, you are going to have to, as a matter of course, put effort (tedious and often unproductive effort), into dealing with what the block quote is getting at.
To me, that's what separates the troopers from the dilettantes or people who just want to make a buck off an idea - we have to tend the garden of discourse and discussion itself. While I used to be more reclusive in saying such things, I guess I'm just realizing it's a matter of course now.
So, thanks for sharing.