wow... fix that pls take our time with that. can kill what we all live on people.

"the energy they use for extraction will exceed the energy they get out" I have not heard that before. Please provide a source.

This probably all comes down to what TYPE of energy is used to extract these resources and the COST to the company of the type of energy used to extract these resources. Some forms of energy are cheaper than others - for example, natural gas is cheaper than oil, etc.

Check out this post about Paul Ryan and the environment: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/11/climate-change-and-paul-ryan_n_1768171.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012

I am waiting for someone to ask Ryan, "Sir, what do you think about climate change?" His answer will indicate how extreme his views are.

Marco; what did you think of my idea to: (1) Gov't. solar 30% tax credit used as down payment on solar system (home or business). Typical home solar for $28k; therefore $8k down. (2) Homeowner uses solar electric savings to pay off solar loan in 8 - 10 years. (3) Uses solar electric savings in years 11 & onward to pay 1/2 to government and 1/2 for personal use, like payment on a PEV? Michelle, Marco & Abelein: Clean coal is coal industry propaganda. It takes one more coal fired power plant of energy to trap the pollution of two existing coal fired power plants. And no one has ever done this; and what makes you think that the CO2 that's trapped by pumping it into the ground, won't simply escape and get back into the air and water? It's another hair brain scheme like fracking. Mountain top removal to mine coal destroys our land and the natural vegetation that covered it. Fracking makes huge cracks in the earth through the uses of huge amounts of energy, huge amounts of water, and huge amounts of poisonous chemicals. That messy and poisonous soup is then free to travel through those new fractures in our earth to poison subterranian streams and ultimately find its way into our streams and oceans. Meanwhile the oil is extracted and burned to pollute our air. Bio-fuels also take a lot of energy to produce oil substitutes that are also burned and in so doing, add more CO2 into the atmosphere. So-called natural gas is not much better than oil; although burning natural gas emits less CO2 than burning gas; it takes more natural gas to generate the same amount of energy as regular gas. To summarize, burning fossil fuels to generate energy for our cars, trucks, planes, homes, businesses, is simply living with an energy regime whose days are numbered. All of these fossil fuel energy generating techniques poison our air, earth and water. In turn, they are allowed to poison us. Every dollar we spend and every day we continue, is a dollar and a day that we could have used to take advantage of the sun, the wind, hydro and geothermal means of generating the energy we need to power our earth. As a society, we need a rational and timely way to transition. It's the only sensible thing to do.

$.

michele, andrew and mark- nice exchange and i think where this is starting to go is a discussion around cost benefit and short-mid-long term planning to solve the problem of energy independence conjoined withe prudent economic (ie responsibile tax and spend policies) which n o one in government seems capable of because they are too focused on the short term fix and the accompanying vote to put them back in office. I do think think that the small loan solution though isnt the issue because we need larger solutions which requires more investment in bio-fuels, solar, gasification, clean coal and the like all with government incentivized reduction in usage. IT requires holistic solutions not stopgaps and we need to solve not just the cost per kilowatt hour but the impact on the environment.,

Abeilein, you have the answer to the question: fracking is a means to end - developing domestic sources of energy for profit. They are not concerned with the fact that the process takes larger amounts of energy than they can hope to extract, and they are not concerned with the destruction to the local environment. They will be long gone when the local water table comes up contaminated and the people have to resort to buying bottled water - hell, that's collateral economic activity. Hopefully the local governments are savvy enough to require fracking companies pay for the destruction of roads, etc., due to heavy truck traffic. there is a short term boost for local economies since the companies pay land owners leasing fees and employ able-bodied young men in the destruction, but this strictly short- term. MarkJaffe has it below: fracking is another short term, quick fix to the energy crisis. This is all our Congress seems to be capable of. Also, I would like to hear some of those arguments that say fracking is a safe process.

The energy used for extraction can't be distributed to the consumer like the excavated energy can. It's simply a means to an end, an end that is for the benefit of the the public. As for environmental effects, for every source you find that says natural gas excavation is unsafe, I can give you one that ensures that it is safe. At this point, we must take advantage of domestic resources.

This is a tough question; one I have thought about many times. Of course there is no easy answer. Every idea has those who support it and those who are opposed. So; here goes. To me, it seems that the crucial mistake our congress critters and our administration do over and over again is spend money on politically expedient things that do not help. They're always shooting from the hip to react to the next crisis. There's no long term commitments to sound policy, plans and implementation. A couple of examples come to mind. (1) The social security tax holiday is one. Republicans love it because it's a tax cut. Democrats love it because; well doesn't everyone love more money in their pocket. So we like it and thus the politicians like it. But to me, this makes no sense. We have been talking for years that social security needs some shoring up. Maybe raising the eligibility age; maybe modestly increasing the tax rate; maybe removing the income caps, so the more you earn the more you contribute. All of these or a balanced combination would certainly make things better. I would support such an idea with one additional requirement; social security funds are not co-mingled with other government pots. No more government IOUs for my hard earned cash. Instead, the current tax holiday only reduces the intake and worsens Social security's financial position. On top of that, the people you are helping are all of us working stiffs. We have the jobs and are most able to pay our fair share. Typical Republican finances: cut the taxes; thus reduce the governments income; but do nothing to balance it with some spending cuts; thus adding to our debt; then blaming the government for being out of control. The second example of programs from our congress critters is the gas for guzzlers program. Give each person, who buys a new car and decommissions the old, working, but less fuel efficient car, an $8000 tax credit. This is great for car manufacturers; they sell loads of new cars; it gives a short term boost to the economy and sales tax revenues. But it doesn't take a look at the longer term costs. Millions of perfectly serviceable cars are taken out of service. The tax credits are funded by more debt that is added to the public's account. Each person who does this gets the tax credit, which winds up reducing their tax liability and decreasing our governments tax revenues. This sounds familiar, print money, increase the US debt, give the money to people who don't need it; reduce their tax liability; reduce government tax revenues; Increase the debt! That's the only cycle our elected officials are willing to repeat. This is a viscious and destructive cycle. I would like to pose a different approach. Instead of incentivising people to buy new cars and demolish their older working cars; incent those same people to buy a solar system for their houses. The $8000 dollars works just as well as a down payment on a solar system as it does for a car. The difference though is dramatic. The solar system produces enough free electricity to eliminate their monthly electric utility bill. The money saved can be used instead to pay off the balance of the solar system loan. Typical payoff time for such a loan is 8 to 10 years. From that point on, the money saved from your freely generated electricity becomes a revenue stream for the happy solar system owner. If he or she likes, they could then use that monthly income to buy the all electric plug-in vehicle (PEV). I would add one little twist to this to repay the government for the original $8000 loan. At year 10 when the home owner starts receiving that positive cash flow revenue stream, use 1/2 for that PEV and 1/2 to pay the government back. This is one long way of saying how to pay for things; but it's the only way for me to explain it. What do you think Marco?

The U.S. actually has more than enough oil domestically and from NAFTA to supply our domestic consumption. The reason we import more oil than we need is because we have the best refineries in the world. Because of the competitive advantage the U.S. is a net importer of oil and exporter of gasoline. So even though fracking is inefficient, our refining process is so efficient it is profitable. The only way to change this dynamic is to make alternative methods as cost efficient.

Mark- I agree with that an antiquated political system is one of the larges obstacles to innovation and reform which is why this platform is so exciting to me. We, the people, can connect and create a bank of ideas to force change. Now that being said I applaud the goals and carbon neutral views espoused by you in 1-7 but before we talk about the merits and timing of such a roll out my threshold question is who pays for the infrastucture and will customers be willing to bear the cost of higher rates to support this agenda during economically uncertain times. How can we systematically improve without crippling the economy ?

Marco; in my humble opinion a responsible energy policy would involve the following: 1. aggressively cut back on the use of fossil fuels. This could be done by: - doubling the avg mpg of our car and truck fleet; thus halving the need for gasoline - installing solar on all home and business rooftops; this could cut electric energy demands in half; which in turn would eliminate the need for added electric utilities - Convert coal fired power plants to Concentrated Solar Power (CSP); thus starting to reduce the need for coal. - replace appliances with energy efficient ones - insulate homes and businesses to current standards. 2. Aggressively increase our use of renewable, environmentally benign, fuel free energy sources. Solar, wind, hydro and thermal energies all have one great advantage; their primary fuel is free. 3. At sometime in the future we would no longer have to mine for fossil fuels. 4. At some point in the future we would no longer depend on foreign oil. 5. At some point in the future we would also not need to worry about those pesky strategic assets in the middle east. 6. That would allow us to drastically reduce our defense assets over there. 7. Imagine saving the 1+ trillion dollars we spend each year on middle east related defense, wars, espionage, embassies, etc. That alone would eliminate our deficit. 8. Add to that the 1/2 trillion dollars a year we spend on foreign oil; that of course could be used to pay off the national debt. 9. Imagine the billions of dollars in interest we would save each year by paying off the debt. All of the above could be done. The only thing standing between doing this for our country, is the current decaying and obsolete political system and their special interest lobbies who like it the way it is.

The energy (Oil, Gas & Coal) industry has only one goal in mind; make as much money as they can; for as long as they can. Their energy costs at the front end do not include the air, water and environmental costs that just get passed along to the environment and the people. Instead, they reap huge profits at the back end since the world is competing for the finished product. Fracking for oil and gas is just as horrific as mountain top removal for coal. They are ruining the environment and our air, water and land.

will - how do you propose eliminating fracking while still developing a responsible energy policy that can support the needs of the american economy ?

At this point I won't even mention the damage that will be done to the environment.