Now, let me start off as a voice of reason, Trickle-Down is not ALWAYS a stupid idea, it just is in America. Just look at history of the great Trickle-Downers.

People always say “trickle down worked great during the Reagan administration!” Well, alright, maybe they don’t always say it, but I’ve heard it somewhere from someone, cuz I sure as hell didn’t just guess that was his policy. But did it really work? The poor got no tax cuts and they hate Reagan (“Ronald Reagan was the devil! Ronald. Wilson. Reagan. Each name is six letters, six six six, the mark of the beast!”- The Boondocks). The Keating Five scandal McCain was a part of, that happened during Reagan’s administration because of the Savings and Loan collapse. On Black Monday the stock market crashed like a drunk driver on an icy road with tires made out of pudding. The National Debt exploded from under 1 billion to 3 trillion. Eventually Reagan broke down and raised taxes. Seven times.

Then Bush tried trickle down again, and what happened? Unemployment is up, AIG, Lehman Brothers, Fannie and Freddie all collapsed, our stock market is tanking, and the national debt got so big they had to remodel the national debt clock.

There’s actually a displayable reason why Pump-Priming kicks the shit out of Trickle-Down in terms of economic stimulus. Alright readers, prepare yourselves, because there’s some math a-comin’. For the weak of heart and those pregnant or nursing, I’ve bolded the most important pieces so you can skim my article and ignore most of the mathematics

In our country the top 20% of people control 84% of all the wealth.  If you cut their taxes by 10%, this will in theory lead to a decrease in the costs of goods and services based on the cut relative to their total revenue.

10% off a 35% tax rate is a 3.5% drop, they already had 65% of their revenue so 3.5% / 65% is a 5.4% increase in available revenue, which, in theory, would translate into a drop in the cost of their goods and services.

So you achieve a 5.4% drop in prices by reducing total tax revenue by 9.2% through trickle down tax policy.

3.5% (the upper tax cut) * 84% (total upper income) / [35% (original upper tax rate) * 84% (total upper income) + 22% (lower tax rate) * 16% (total lower income)]

=3.5% * 84% / [35% * 84% + 22% * 16%]

=9.2%

However, if you take that same reduction in tax revenue to the lower classes (the bottom 80%) you can give them all a significantly bigger tax cut of almost 86% over the multiple brackets.

Because that bottom 16% is taxed at a lower rate than the top 84%, it is a significantly smaller portion of the tax revenue (the tax rate ranges from 15 to 28%, so I’m going to use 22% as an approximation). At 22% the bottom 80 would provide just under 11% of total tax revenue.

16% of total income at a 22% tax rate divided by 84% of income at a 35% tax rate plus 16% of total income at a 22% tax rate

=(16%*22%)/(84%*35% + 16%*22%)

= 10.7%

So for the same cost (9.2% of total tax revenue) you can reduce the taxes on the lower class by 85.9% which then increases their buying power by 24.2%.

9.2% decrease in total revenue / 10.7% of total revenue = 9.2/10.7 = 85.9%

85.9% off a 22% tax rate is an 18.9% drop, they already had 78% of their revenue so 18.9% / 78% is a 24.2% increase in available revenue, which translates directly into an increase in buying power.

Just to recap, AND FOR THOSE OF YOU SKIMMING, STOP IT! READ EVERYTHING FROM HERE OUT: for the same price in total revenue, you can give a 10% tax cut to the top class and increase buying power by 5.4%, or you can give an 85.9% tax cut to the bottom class and increase buying power by 24.2%.

When, for the same price, you can give almost nine times the amount of tax cuts to the lower classes, and increase buying power as by almost five times as much, arguing tax cuts on the top brackets makes you either selfish (if you’re in that bracket) or stupid (if you’re in that bottom 80%).

Three things of note:

1- No one is proposing a 10% tax cut for the top bracket, that’s stupid from every angle, but the proportions all stay the same whatever the number, 1% 5% 30%, it is always ~nine times the percentile cut and ~five times the increase in buying power.

2- If the top X (<50) percentage of America had less than 50% of the total income, the numbers would reverse themselves (with the current tax bracket schedule) and trickle down would be a valid theory. But they don’t, so it’s not.

3- Additionally, not all of the top 20%’s tax cuts will go to cost reduction, most of it will actually just be saved and accumulated or reinvested in the company, and people are not venture capitalizing quite like the used to. Whereas the people who have to decide between health care and new school clothes for their children will immediately use their increased buying power which will stimulate the economy.

Last thing, my apologies that there isn’t too much humor in this, so I’ll make my next one is twice as funny. Or half as unfunny. I forget how that math works.

Obama's "Gotcha!" moment shocked the world.

To the utter shock and dismay of billions around the world, in his victory speech, President Elect Barack Obama admitted to everything skeptics and conspiracy theorists had claimed all along, that he in fact is not only a terrorist, but also an anarchist, Muslim and socialist.

“Gotcha!” said Obama as he addressed thousands of supporters in Chicago, shortly after claiming victory over John McCain. “Look, I know I said I wasn’t a Muslim, I know I said I wasn’t a terrorist. But, these things are just not true. Oh, and that Barack Hussein Obama thing. That’s not true either. My real middle name is Stalin.”

Once inaugurated, Obama promises a swift, yet disordered redistribution of all possessions. “What we’re going to do, is bring trucks around, uh, to all major cities,” said Obama, “everyone is going to put their clothes and their furniture into these trucks. I’m going to have everything burned, and then redistributed by many three-legged cats.”

The new Obama has already taken criticism for his plans by all major leaders of every political party, including Democrats.

“He’s gone super villain or something.” says Jim Thompson, a former Obama supporter. “It’s like he ran two races. We should be calling him Two-Race.”

“I told ya’ll it was true. Ya’ll didn’t believe me, but now the black-devil is upon us!” says a fanatical douche-bag who was right about everything.

When asked to respond to these objections, Obama replied in great spirits, “Sure, a lot of people are against the policies of hope. People don’t think we can create a forty-mile tall statue of Allah.  But, I want to reassure the American people that not only, yes we can, but yes you will or I’ll put a jihad on you and your family.”

Since the Obama announcement, the American public turned to Senator John McCain, in hopes of him contesting election results, to pull Obama out of office but have found similar surprises.  “My friends,” said McCain in a press release, “I wish I could continue to push Country First into the White House, but I’m afraid I haven’t been completely truthful. You see, as President, you can only serve two terms, making me ineligible all along. The real John McCain died four years ago and I, George W. Bush took his place…and his face.”

In the hours following stunning and elegant announcements by the President Elect and the defeated Maverick, hundreds-of-thousands of Americans flooded the Canadian border attempting to flee the US, only to find increased security, in the form of a 18-foot steel barrier wall, barring them from promised land.

Thursday Thunder Presents: the best of the internet and beyond.

1. Apparently Bailout documents are being redacted. I smell yet another scandal – http://www.propublica.org/article/why-are-docs-from-the-bailout-being-redacted-1022/

Read More >>

From http://flickr.com/photos/wackyland/

I am currently in India for work, so watching the Presidential Debates at times is difficult. Because I am 12.5 hours ahead of the US west coast, they usually start between 5.30 am and 6.30 am. We leave for the office at 7am, so I rarely get to see a full debate, even if I feel the overwhelming desire to wake up early. But I had decided to get up early and watch the last debate.

The VP of the company, who is also over here with me, said to one of the people at the site “Well, Matt needs to watch the debate to make up his mind who to vote for.” Which is silly because the day Joe Biden pulled out of the primaries I knew who I was going to vote for. But it did make me take a step back and think about what were the reasons I was voting for Obama.

1. Iraq War- Turns out that whoever the next president is will probably have three-quarters of the troops out by 2012 because that is what the Iraqi leaders are going to demand. So the difference between McCain and Obama in the real world, not the campaign trail, is negligible.

2. Afghanistan- Here Obama gets the nod because as a Democrat, he will be better positioned to bring in NATO and EU alies to create a solution. McCain, who stood in line behind Rumsfeld in leading the charge to Iraq represents the neo-conservative interventionist foreign policy that so much of “Old Europe strongly dislikes. Also, he has a much more cogent policy towards Pakistan, which is going to qualify as a failed state in six months. However, the distinctions are again minimal in the real world. Both will be able to go to NATO countries with fresh faces and fresh plans and be able to ask them for their ideas and assistance. France, Germany, possibly even Japan would be willing to send more support troops and possible even special forces if the US was more recognizing of the needs of these countries and more congenial towards them.

3. Energy/Environment- I group these two together because we need to realize that going forward, they need to be linked. Environmental degradation, especially climate change, is caused by our abuses of energy and not finding solutions. Problems that have been staring at us for 50 years! I am a firm believer that we are sowing our own destruction. But more so, the United States and Europe will not be hurt relatively as much as developing and third world nations who’s population are particularly dependent on the changing environment and at a dangerous risk from changing climate and rising sea levels.

4.  Gay Rights – It is pretty hard to get further to the left of me on Gay Rights. This coupled with Obama’s long held view on Iraq has led me to vote for him. McCain’s position is still reactionist and is a blatant rejection of the human rights that we preach in this country.

5.  Reproductive Rights – McCain’s selection of Palin truly made his opinion on this matter clear. McCain has long claimed to be a proponent of the Pro-Life stance, though there wre many doubts as he began his run. I firmly hold the belief that abortions should be avoided. We should encourage adoption and do everything we can from morning after pills to spreading condoms to sex education to decrease teenage pregnancy and other solutions to prevent pregnancy. But to me, it is still a woman’s right to choose. McCain believes he has the right to take that choice away.

I admit that when McCain won the Republican nomination, that I would rather have either Obama or Biden, and possibly even Hillary, but I would not have had major issue with him. His historical political positions that for the most part I agree with (other than gay rights and abortion). He is the first Repulican to embrace global climate change propose legislation to help solve the problem. He was one of the first to criticise the Bush Administration for their failures in administering Iraq. He was anti-torture and anti-tax breaks (a position he has since flip-flopped on, sadly). He believes generally in less regulation, which in general, is usually a good thing (the devil is in the details, as they say.) However, when he chose The Idiot Sarah Palin as his running mate, he lost any ability to receive my vote. Unless of course Obama admitted that he was a secret-Muslim-terrorist hell bent on race wars and using his Christian Pastor Jeremiah Wright to rewrite the constitution.

McCain’s positions above made me believe that Obama was the best candidate to lead this country. His ability to unite this country and possibly to unite the world behind a world led by America were reasons I could fully support his candidacy. McCain’s obvious drawbacks made him have to do something very special to win my vote. Below, I list out what he needs to do to gain that vote.

I want McCain to propose an environmental plan that radically changes how we look at the world.

First world nations, who have led the charge to deposit CO2 into the atmosphere, have the obligation to clean it up, even if India and China won’t follow immediately. They will soon have no choice as environmental awareness and assurance of sustainability becomes apart of international trade and finance agreements. But we, as America, as the highest per-capital distributor of CO2, should lead the charge. What does McCain have to do?

1.  Explain that the US will immediately start acting upon its obligations of the Kyoto Protocol. This basically limits our Greenhouse gases and enters us into the International Emissions Trading Scheme.

2.  The US will lead the charge in creating a new internatioanl agreement that will follow Kyoto after it is over in 2012. The US must lead and must do its best to engage India, China, Russia, and Brazil, the four largest emerging economies and some of the biggest polluters in the world. It is very important to engage these countries as over the next 50 years, they will be the drivers of the international economy. These countries must have engagement and some ownership of it. Getting them involved in the process is extremely important.

Even if China and India decide to not sign on to this new treaty the US must lead. China and India have basically made the argument that the western world released carbon during their industrialization; now it would unfair to limit their carbon emissions during their industrialization. It is a realistic argument. However, it is very bad in terms of the environment. The US must continue to encourage rapprochement with the two countries. Because both have so many people in such environmentally precarious areas, they are both more at risk for natural disasters and man made environmental destruction destroying human welfare than the US. They will come around and the US needs to make sure that every opportunity exists for them to come into the climate control regime at the earliest possible moment. Hopefully, India and China will eventually be the leaders.

3.  The US will insititute a carbon tax on industry in the US. Economists internationally favor the carbon tax over a cap-and-trade scheme because it does much more to limit carbon emissions and it doesn’t create a false market, like a cap-and-trade scheme can. Also, a carbon tax is fairer to small and medium sized companies.

4.  McCain will take back his ridiculous $300b proposal to buy mortgages (at book price!) and use that money instead to generate alternative energy. Specifically, investments in solar, wind (offshore wind is particularly interesting), tidal, geothermal, and yes, even nuclear. He will do this by creating a government venture capital firm that will be pledged to create alternative energy technologies. This government venture capital firm will be managed by ______. Ok, so I originally thought Al Gore would be a fantastic choice, however, I realize that  many people are not fans of him. So how about someone appointed by McCain and must be approved by the Seante.

5.  McCain will pledge a new law to increase CAFE standards, the mileage standards for motor vehicle fleets in the US to increase the average to 40 mpg before 2015. Currently, the goal is 35 mpg by 2020, as signed into law in Jan 2007. However, this law has numerous waivers that car manufacturers can apply for. McCain should reject those waivers. The technology exists. We have cars that easily get 40 or 50 mpg. Right now. We have hybrid technology that can help the heavy trucks necessary for construction to shift their petrol usage when they aren’t working hard. We need to continue to decrease the amount of petrol we consume, and the carbon that we emit from it. Petroleum, petrol, or gasoline in the US makes up a full 44 percent! of our carbon emissions.

We must move away from large SUV’s. We must drive less. We must embrace smaller cars and car pooling, taking the bus, and biking.

6.  McCain will mandate that every single power municipality must provide the ability for homeowners and business to sell excess energy generated by renewable forms back to the municipality. Specifically, we need solar cells on every house. We need a wind turbine in the back yard of every home in America. Every farmer should power their home from wind. Every apartment complex should power the AC and heat from solar cells. Solar cells are currently going thru a revolution where they will not have to be in the sunniest areas of the world, will not have to be kept pointed directly at the sun to work, and most imporantly, are cheap. If municipalities focus on this, we can start to decrease our dependence on coal and oil in this country. Coal makes up over 50% of the power in the electrical lines. Natural Gas makes up another 16%. If we can reduce those two items we can cut the amount of carbon emissions significantly.

Currently, many US states use net-metering, where individuals can sell power back to the electrical grid, and get credit for it. However, most states limit the amount of energy individuals can sell back to the grid.

As the US is short on energy, and energy costs are increasing, we need more energy. Also, in many cities and states individuals don’t get the same price for the energy they sell as the energy they purchase. That is in fact non net-metering at all.

And yes, Tacoma does have a net-metering program. You should go get involved.

7.  McCain will double the tax incentive for efficient buildings from $1.80/sq ft to $3.60. As we have greater incentives to produce more energy efficient buildings, we can decrease our dependence on oil and coal. There are also significant incentives in place already to encourage efficient buildings. These should be expanded so that new buildings are encouraged to install their own energy supplies. So that new buildings do a better job incorporating public transporation and bycicling employees.

8.  Create greater incentives for nuclear power plants. Many people object to nuclear power plants because they are obviously dangerous. And they do produce waste that is extremely difficult to get rid of. However, with Breeder Reactors a significant amount of waste is destroyed. Also, the limited amount of nuclear waste created by nuclear reactors is less of a detriment to our environment then the billions of pounds of carbon b

eing emitted into the atmosphere. McCain claims already he wants 45 new reactors by 2030. Hopefully, with the above steps, that many won’t be necessary.

9.  Massive investment in batteries. One of the largest problems with solar, wind and tidal power is that it is inconsistent. The sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow. Tidal power is subject to massive infrastructure issues and easily breaks. Because industry needs a constant supply of power, occaisionally losing power due to loss of wind is unacceptable. We need battery power to be able to store up power that is being produced so that it can be used at a later date. Coal and nuclear power plants are great because they provide a constant energy supply. Petrol is great because as long as it is in the car, power is available. But solar energy is hard to find at midnight. We need an expansion of batteries in cars so that cars no longer are dependent upon petrol stations to function. Can batteries eventually power a house or an apartment complex? We won’t know until we try.

11.  Carbon Sequestering – This is one of the most complex issues and also very difficult to articulate. Even if we continue to reduce the amount of carbon emmissions, the amount of carbon going into the atmosphere is still increasing at an absolute levels. We need a way to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. That basically means more plants and using carbon sequestering to take carbon out of the air and pump to the bottom of the ocean or into old coal mines. We are almost to the point where the technology is commercially viable. It needs to be in place now.

12.  Mandates

1.  CAFE Standards increase as described above

2.  Renewable energy provides 40% of the energy in the US by 2020. Currently it is at 15%.

3.  10% of carbon released by businesses and power plants sequestered by 2015. 30% by 2020. 75% by 2050.

4.  25% of all energy should come from net-meetering related activity by 2020.

The reason that this is so important right now is that our economy is heading into a very bad place. The financial crisis and the drying up of credit is starting to have an impact on businesses. Various other indicators of economic performance from jobless rates to the purchasing manager’s index (PMI) are all showing the economy is in a downturn, possible already in recession, and quite probably headed into depression. Almost all economists agree that the the best way for governments to drive economies out of depressions is to increase spending, usually on public works in order to create jobs. McCain could create a plan to do that. Paul Krugman, the most recent winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics (yes, it was done for work 20 years ago, but still) has already started arguing for broad public infrastructure projects.

As the economy declines we will need to create jobs. Green collar jobs in America, leading the environmental and energy revolution is how we should proceed. Significant money to find winners in solar, wind, tidal and geothermal will provide us technologies that we can sell to the rest of the world. America was once the most dominant country in terms of computer technology. We need to create another type of technology dominance. During this economic downturn, there isn’t a better time to try to fix our massive environmental issues and energy dependence.

As I said above, right now, Obama has my vote. His positions on other issues outside of the environmental/energy are clearly closer to what I hold. But also, his energy policy pushes the United States much more towards alternative energy and getting away from dependence on foreign dictators. McCain advocated for offshore drilling, energy solutions that would have no impact within 10 years. His running mate has advocated drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR) even though that would also have no impact within 10 years, and would produce .4% to 1.2% of the world’s oil (for consumption in 2030, the estimate when it would hit the market).

McCain’s plans to get us away from oil simply aren’t good enough. He needs to do more to get me support him. The plan listed above would get me on board. I sincerely hope he does propose it.

The new face of rock: "Your Friends and Mine"

John McCain and Sarah Palin haven’t made any friends in the music business, as rock group after rock group denies the Republican nominees usage of their popular songs at campaign rallies. Desperate for a song to play as they celebrated their “American spirit”, McCain/Palin made a move which shocked fans. They started their own band.

With the long list of angry artists including Heart, Jackson Browne, Van Halen, and the Foo Fighters, Bon Jovi joins the ranks as the latest super-group to speak out against the unapproved Republican use of music.

“I was totally shocked to hear that McCain and Palin were using our music,” says Bon Jovi, or BoJo as he prefers.  “Why can’t they just create their own propaganda songs? They have to go and steal everyone else’s. I don’t mean to offend anyone but, they’re worse than Milli Vanilli.”

“They’re fakes,” says Jackson Brown, “They don’t have an original bone in their body. We don’t need four more years of stolen music.”

In response to this smear and rejection, McCain and Palin determined the only answer was to form their own rock band. “When it became clear, don’t-cha-know, that we weren’t welcome to cover all these other groups,” says Palin, “we said, dog-gonnit, we’ll have to make the music ourselves. We have to form our own band.”

Sporting John McCain on vocals, Sarah Palin on keytar and Sen. Joe Lieberman on drums, the newly formed Your Friends and Mine, has been touring cities across the nation, playing hits like Drill, Baby, Drill, But Not in a Way Which Would Suggest We Support Gay Marriage and Joe Six-Pack Deserves Another Tax Break to sold out stadium crowds.

“Finally, my friends, we have come to rock your depends off!” said John McCain at a rally in Houston.

Your Friends and Mine‘s Songs Against Terror comes into stores on October 28th, a move that the Republican nominee hopes will propel him to the White House.

“Winning this election used to be about changing America,” says McCain, “Now, it’s become something much more. It’s about speaking to Americans through music.”

On his potential victory, McCain says, “If on November 4th, I’ve won the election, then the White House is in for one hell of a concert.”

A great picture taken from mrdorkesq's Flickr photostream: http://flickr.com/photos/29158681@N00/2890492643/

First I want to thank Brandon for doing such a great job live-blogging the debate and stepping in for me when my plans changed at the last minute. He did a far better job than I would’ve. I just wanted to share some of my thoughts and experiences from the debate as well.

I watched the debate at a local pizza joint with a group of students from the University of Oregon’s chapter of College Democrats. First, let me say that that was easily the best debate of the campaign. I thought both candidates did a much better job of answering the questions this time around and that they really went back and forth instead of repeating bits and pieces from their stump speeches. The moderator, Bob Schieffer, did a great job following up on with the candidates on what they said. Obviously it was far from a perfect debate, but I think it was clearly a better and more interesting debate than the previous two. Read More >>

Good news Melonites! Our very own, Walker Lindley, has agreed to live-blog the 3rd and final presidential debate on Wednesday @ 6pm.

Join us once again as Walker leads the live-blog charge analyzing  McCain and Obama. Remember, you too can participate by leaving comments on the live-blog. Walker will be choosing his favorites as he sees them and replying.

Are we going to see more pandering? More finger-pointing and non-answers? Only The Melon can navigate through this asteroid field of campaign confusion.  Join us!

The “American Issues Project”, under the leadership of a paid consultant of John McCain has recently decided to air a negative attack ad condemning Obama’s link to Bill Ayers.

The ad paints Bill Ayers as a terrorist, rhetoric which has been picked up by conservative pundits and figures. The democratic response to this campaign has left out one key argument. They prefer to point out that Obama does not have a close relationship with Ayers, and that he was eight years old when the attacks occurred, and that he has condemned the attacks. These arguments serve to distance Obama from Ayers, which is fine. However, why is this man so deplorable that one needs to claim he is not friends with him?

The terrorists we are fighting against, and whose hijacked plane is contrasted with Ayers’ deeds in the advert, are conservative Muslims who do not believe in freedom of thought and action. They believe in a theocratic dictatorship without personal rights governed by Sharia law.

Let me tell you a bit about Bill Ayers:

• He comes from a wealthy family in Chicago. Instead of taking the standard corporate route like many of his wealthy peers, he decided to live his life so that it did not become a mockery of his values.
• In 1965, Ayers joined a picket line protesting an Ann Arbor, Michigan, pizzeria for refusing to seat African Americans.
• At the age of 21, Ayers became director of a preschool based on the “free school movement”, encouraging cooperating and communication instead of test scores and grades
• Ayers became militant and participated in several bombings: the New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, the United States Capitol building in 1971, and The Pentagon in 1972. No one was killed as a result of this.
• After his radical days, he worked with Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley in shaping the city’s school reform program.
• He is a distinguished professor of the University of Illinois at Chicago.
• He believes in the downfall of US imperialism and the achievement of a classless world.

Does this sound like a dishonorable man? Does this sound like a man with intentions to hurt the “American dream”?

Ayers’ mistake was going militant. As a pacifist, I realize that non-violent action is the only way to force meaningful, credible change. Everyone makes mistakes. Ayers is quoted in the advertisement to have said “we didn’t do enough”. This claim is in reference to everyone in America at the time not doing enough to stop the war, not in reference to how many bombs he built.

Bill Ayers questioned America’s government at a time when it most needed to be questioned. Ayers tried to save innocent lives, both of our servicemen in Vietnam and of the Vietnamese people, some of whom were probably unjustly killed in the 23 bombing runs flown by John McCain. Bill Ayers is not a terrorist, at least not in the sense that the attack ads paint him out to be. He is not a Muslim who wants to limit women’s rights and implement Sharia law. Bill Ayers is a freedom fighter, and should be considered an American hero for his exemplification of the founding fathers’ idea of questioning one’s government.

Do Facts Matter?

Not to Mr. Sowell

By Thomas Sowell

Abraham Lincoln said, “You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you can’t fool all the people all the time.”

Bob Marley said it too. But why would we want to reference a hippie terrorist.

Read More >>

The following analysis was prepared by an individual with more than three decades experience working in the U.S. and European energy industries. He has asked to remain anonymous because he currently serves as an executive member of a publicly traded corporation. However, he has authorized me to release information related to his experience working as a consultant to various oil, wind and tidal energy companies – that he has played a significant role in the development of hydrogen and ammonia fuel alternatives – and that he is regularly consulted by various members of the United States Congress regarding the development of alternative energies.

I asked him too compare and contrast Senators Obama and McCain’s energy platforms. He responded with the following article.

When comparing the candidates’ web-published energy plans, (Obama V McCain) those of us who are most concerned about the subject must battle depression because they are so obviously concocted to win votes by seeming to make promises to all competing interests rather than to debate crucial issues or to offer bold leadership towards real solutions by advocating choices.

Neither Obama nor McCain admit that the interrelated problems of meeting energy demands from sustainable sources and protecting against catastrophic climate change, sea-level rise, and ocean acidification are existential threats to our nation and indeed human civilization. Neither analyzes the logistical and transportation issues of matching the where, when, and amounts of energy available from renewable, or at least sustainable, sources with the where, when, and degrees of demand. Such an analysis would make it clear that we must make some fuel from sustainable sources as available that can be supplied as needed. Neither mentions the Hydrogen Economy plan to use hydrogen as that fuel had been the plan of the Bush Administration, which is now generally agreed to be hopeless. Neither mentions the Ammonia Economy alternative to use ammonia as that fuelthat Governor and former Democratic Presidential Candidate Tom Vilsack supported and which will hold its 5th International Conference later this month in Minneapolis, nor the Wind for Electricity & Natural Gas for Transportation Fuel alternative that formerly Republican oilman T. Boone Pickens initiated.

Nonetheless, a careful reading of the two plans does reveal real differences. McCain has listened to long vested interests and includes many of their specific suggestions in his plan, whereas Obama promises to listen to all sides but is more cautious about making commitments. A striking example of this distinction is seen on the issue of Nuclear Power, which is neither renewable nor sustainable but may be an important bridge source. McCain promises 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030 and ultimately 100 new nukes; while Obama makes no promise.

The US has not started a new civilian nuclear power plant in 30 years and worldwide there was (according to the Energy Institute in London) a net loss of 1 nuclear power plant in 2007. By contrast, the equivalent of 25 standard-sized nuclear power plants (25,000 MW capacity) of electric wind generators were added worldwide in 2007. Nuclear power plants are only built where a government will underwrite and guarantee the venture. Many wind-farms are privately funded. Bankers have clearly chosen wind energy as the best bet now available for the future but US politicians are reluctant to acknowledge this for fear of alienating competing interests (fossil fuels, nuclear, solar, and wave energy). McCain does not address the problem of storage of nuclear waste, whereas Obama objects to sending it through downtown Las Vegas on its way to the still unused Yucca Mountain repository. Neither has suggested avoiding transport through urban areas by building new railroads to Yucca Mountain through deserted Federal lands. These might extend from Hanford, WA to Yuma, AZ and from east of LA, CA to western TX. They might also serve high-speed trains and provide rights-of-way for a stronger electric grid.

Whereas Obama would broadly and generally budget $150B over 10 year to “catalyze private efforts” to build clean energy while providing five million American jobs, McCain would specifically budget $2B for research and development of Clean Coal Technology and $300M for a prize for an accomplishment in battery technology for vehicles that provides a 70% cost improvement over present offerings. Clean Coal Technology is the hope for those who wish to continue to burn the dirtiest fossil fuel now in use and is extremely speculative. It envisages: the capture of the exhaust of coal burning plants; the separation of the minor component that is carbon dioxide from the major component that is nitrogen and from trace components that are oxides of sulfur, mercury, silica, and other pollutants; the release of the nitrogen back into the atmosphere; the transport of the carbon dioxide to places having a geology that allows one to inject the carbon dioxide deep underground so that it will react chemically over 1000 years or so to form stable minerals and not escape back to the surface or into the ground water, which it would acidify; and sequestration of the trace pollutants by some means. There is great doubt that $2B would be adequate to develop such a technology and that it could ever be economic however much is invested. The British Minister for Energy, Malcolm Wicks has opined that “Coal is now worthless” because the cost of cleaning it or of the damage done if it is not cleaned far exceeds the extra cost of getting it from wind, wave, or solar sources.