Subscribe by RSS
America is about to take another sucker punch to the gut if the Lieberman-Warner Climate Change Act gets passed anytime soon by congress. Luckily President Bush vowed to actually lift a finger against liberalism and has threatened to veto it in the unlikely event it hits his desk.
The point in all this is that even some Democrats expressed worry over pushing a bigger undue tax burden on the American people while at the same time they march the oil executives to Capital Hill over the price of gas! Personally I’d be in favor of the oil companies subpoenaing congress for once, then we could expose the real reason gas is $4 per gallon. Who gives congress the right to subpoena a particular industry that ticks them off every other week?
Look at these intellectually gifted legislators:
Did you see her colleagues to the right snickering because even they found it comical? Please, people who work 3 days a week on taxpayer money shouldn’t lecture anyone on “obscene salaries.”
The threat of higher taxes hasn’t stopped one liberal senator from supporting such a bill wholeheartedly. That would be none other than current presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain. That’s right, McCain supports such legislation creating a “cap and trade” system over carbon emissions. In theory, businesses would have a limited amount of “carbon emissions” every year. Upon reaching that cap, they’d have to purchase more and/or purchase them from businesses who haven’t used all theirs. It amounts to a completely regressive tax and cost increase which will hurt the lowest income earners the most, also known as the people Democrats claim to care about.
What is most irritating about this scenario is that you cannot name a single presidential candidate who has not completely lost his or her mind of the issue of “climate change,” a.k.a natural climate cycles which mankind cannot do anything about.
What irks me more is that should John McCain become president, conservatism will be kicked to the curb by just about every Washington politician, save a few who will not be welcome at the White House anymore. At this point I’m willing to concede four years to the Democrats so they can shove this “green” hoax on the American people and take the blame when we wake up and realize we’ve been duped.
Here’s another point, I watch these politicians scream all day long about global warming and the dangerous, utterly destructive forces of “climate change.” Then I watch them continue to fly and drive while they lecture everyone else to sell their cars and ride bikes. The hypocrisy is beyond measure. John McCain didn’t even bother to vote on the recent Lieberman-Warner bill yet he tells us government must solve the problem and it’s such a grave threat. So grave, Senator McCain, you were like, “eh, I’ll just skip it since I’m just trying to hoodwink people anyways, no need to fly all the way back to DC to earn my obscene salary…”
See, the thing is, if these politicians trying to sell us the abominable hoax known as global warming, you’d think they would at least pretend like they were willing to change their own lives. Wait, that’s right, they buy carbon “credits,” the next big hoax to be sprung on the American people. So you’re telling me if you can afford to waste your money on pretending that carbon credits actually make a difference, you have the permission to have a ridiculously huge “carbon footprint” while the the rest of us are supposed to ride bikes and turn our A/C down 5 degrees?
Where is the voice of reason to counter the global warming hysteria? Will we end up like the UK which has imposed a “cap and trade” system on individual people? Will our taxes be higher to offset our carbon footprint? Does anyone care to speak out against this complete and utter falsity which will be shoved down everyone’s throat by each of the presidential candidates?
There is no conservative voice, no conservative leader to vote for in 2008. I digress, no need to go down that road. Conservatives need to buck up and look down the political road to the 2010 midterm elections.
Here’s my poll question, regardless of your political views:
(4 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
Loading ...Visit the You Decide 2008 Store »
Conservative Gal, you have missed a very important point about the “green hoax”. While I won’t argue with you about the validity of global warming, since you seem to already have your mind made up, I will say this: “green” makes economic sense, as well.
How is it that congress is somehow responsible for the price of gas? We have one of the lowest gas taxes on the planet, at only 18 cents. The only other upward pressure exerted on gas prices by our government has been our involvement in the Middle East, which is a policy you have supported! I’d argue that the fact that our gas tax is so low is one of the reasons we spend so much on oil in America. Our abysmal funding of infrastructure such as roads and rails has cost us far more than the development of said systems would have, because it takes far more fuel than it should to get anywhere. Look at Europe, where they pay somewhere in the neighborhood of 6-7 USD per gallon. They still spend far less, though, because they have an excellent highway system, and even better railway system, and stellar public transportation to boot.
Beyond all this is the economic effect of green politics. Green politics designed to reduce our dependance on oil should be lauded, whether or not you agree with the idea of global warming. The United States imports about 12 billion barrels of oil every day from overseas! What, exactly, is wrong with an attempt to keep that money here? That would be trillions of dollars yearly flowing into the U.S. economy, instead of gowing toward the construction of some new monstrosity in Dubai. Don’t give me that crap about ANWR and offshore drilling either, it is as much a conservative scam as global warming is a supposed “liberal” scam. Since we don’t have enough oil in these “reserves” to support our habit, we will still pay more, because OPEC has repeatedly said that they will meet any U.S. attempts to increase supply with a decrease in their production.
Green politics, aside from the effect on, and of, oil, has also produced billions in new investments, start-ups, and produced new technologies right here in America. Green has procuded much good in the way of economic effect, and with very little in the way of adverse side-effects, no matter how much your favorite talk-show host might tell you otherwise. This is where most hard-core conservatives have been kind of brain-washed by conservative pundits like Rush Limbaugh!
Very, VERY information about those Energy Saving Light Bulbs off of C-Span
http://youtube.com/watch?v=e-LOtKIIKcg
Dreadsen, thanks for the link about those light bulbs, we have some and I hate them. Now I have ammunition to justify trashing them to my husband. *LOL*
CG, I’m personally conflicted over the “green” issue, so I’ll not comment on it for now. But with all due respect I do have to take issue with this:
“eh, I’ll just skip it since I’m just trying to hoodwink people anyways, no need to fly all the way back to DC to earn my obscene salary…â€
Remember McCain voted against the Senate pay increase, and when it passed anyway he has never accepted the raise personally, he’s donated every cent of it to charity. We must give the devil his due here.
Your video isn’t showing up, and the link is not working…..
Gee, babs, I’m sure that donating his pay increase really hurts him, considering his wife is worth 100 million dollars. Nothing but posturing, in my opinion. I agree, CFL bulbs such, though. They seem to turn everything an awful shade of yellow. Just wait, though, because LED’s are going to become mainstream really soon (yet another product being pioneered by U.S. manufacturers).
Josh, did you watch the video Dreadsen posted? Those CFL bulbs are made in China only, if US manufacturers are producing a better product, tell them to hurry up!!
I never insinuated that donating the pay increase hurt him financially, Josh. And there’s a difference in “posture” and “principal”. McCain has not used that little tidbit in any of his campaigning, it was a personal decision he made at the time, and it came out when the media examined his tax records. So that’s not posturing, that’s principal, and even the staunchest Obama fan should respect that and not belittle it. I will throw in here, however, that if McCain had kept all of his book royalties over the years like Obama instead of donating them away, the jab would be about McCain’s net worth and not his wife’s.
Babs,
I agree I hate CFL bulbs with a passion, and refuse to use them.
Dreadsen,
Thank you for the link. I will be showing it to a few people that I have been trying to get to leave that mess alone.
Josh,
I agree completely with you. I currently use LED bulbs at home. They are expensive upfront investment but My electric bill has dropped over 70% since I started using them, andf they are made in the good old USA!!!!!!! I just hope we continue to make them here. I also can’t wait until they hit the main stream so the price can come down significantly.
Melvin, where are you getting the LED bulbs? Geez, I live under a rock down here. *L*
Lol Dreadsen… that was quite an amusing video.
LED bulbs… whether they go mainstream or not, you just sold me! Thanks for the tip off, that looks fantastic
Babs,
I order mine from https://edisonled.com, but I get a discount because my company does business with them. I also get them cheaper from an electronics catalog. I will get the name of it for you when I get home later.
Just remember that if you want them to be as bright as your standard bulbs get something that puts out 300+ lumens. Anything else wouldn’t really be bright enough.
Oh I forgot to mention that they only use about 5watts ea. for a 60-70W equivalent compared to CFL which still uses about 12-15W
Thanks, Melvin. And your light bill has really dropped 70%? That is so awesome, why aren’t we hearing more about the US made LED light than the China made CFL light? What does that say about us?
Babs,
That makes you wonder doesn’t it? Why isn’t Congress pushing for LED to be mandatory instead of CFL?
It did require a little work to get my bill down that far I replaced every IC bulb in the house with LED. You can also buy LED replacements for all of your accessories. I got rid on my Big Screen rear projection TV and got a DLP Projector. I replaced the projector bulb with an ultra bright LED. so the cost to run my TV has pretty much vanished.
CFL bulbs are awful. LED is the future of light bulbs, I can’t fathom why environmentalists aren’t pushing LED over CFL.
LED uses less energy than CFL and they don’t contain lead!
In fact, with the federal legislation in the next several years banning the incandescent bulb, we’ve decided to buy LED lights if we’re forced to change. They’re expensive now, but they last tremendously long and they use almost no power.
CFL bulbs are indeed made in China since they’d probably cost too much to produce in the US considering the lead content.
If put into major production, I’m sure the LED technology could become just as cheap as the CFL nonsense is now.
Thanks for that EdisonLED.com link Melvin, I’m checking them out now. I found a few other companies producing LED bulbs domestically as well.
Josh,
You are out of your league when it comes to energy policy.
1) In Chicago, 20% of the price we pay for gas is taxes. There is more than the federal piece.
2) Restrictions on refining has squeezed supply. We haven’t built a refinery in 30 years.
3) Oil companies do not determine the price of oil. It is determined by supply and demand and reported as a spot price on the NYMEX. It’s just like a stock price.
4) The US has a far superior rail system for freight than Europe. I’m not sure that their roads are any better than our interstate system. Also, population centers are much more dense in Europe making it much easier to walk or ride you bike to work.
I am all for getting off of foreign oil, but please tell me how we are going to realistically do it without tapping into our own resources, including nuclear. Wind is an eye sore. Solar is great, but it can’t even run your local 7-11 yet. What are we going to do in the interim? Horse and buggy? Oh can’t do that because horse flatulance contributes to global warming
Conservative Gal,
Gas prices are not controlled by Congress. They are controlled by the oligopoly you see in OPEC and the market itself for gas is a perfectly competitive one.
Another thing, there are currently nearly 20 different boutique gasoline blends that add to refining costs.
Stalin,
“I am all for getting off of foreign oil, but please tell me how we are going to realistically do it without tapping into our own resources, including nuclear. Wind is an eye sore. Solar is great, but it can’t even run your local 7-11 yet. What are we going to do in the interim? Horse and buggy? Oh can’t do that because horse flatulance contributes to global warming :)”
I would love to answer that for you. Considering my education paid for by the military is in Nuclear power :), and energy engineering.
The United States in it’s farm subsidies programs is paying some farmers to leave a certain portion of their fields empty to keep the price of certain crops at a sustainable level.
Making ethanol from corn, or sugar beats is not practical because it raises the cost of those crops to be grown for food; however this unused land can be used to grow Switchgrass which produces 4 to 5 times more ethanol per unit of energy put into production.
Quote from the Noble Foundation
“Switchgrass potential
Using Oklahoma switchgrass as a feedstock for fuel makes sense because the output could be huge, said Oklahoma Energy Secretary David Fleischaker.
Oklahoma has 34 million acres of crop and pasture land, Fleischaker said. If just half of that land was used to grow high-yielding switchgrass for ethanol production, Oklahoma could produce the equivalent of 1.3 million barrels of oil a day, rivaling the output of some members of OPEC.
“It represents an enormous opportunity for rural Oklahoma,” Fleischaker said.
What’s more, it could help America kick its addiction to oil.”
Here is the link to the entire article at the Noble Foundation. http://www.noble.org/pres.....index.html
By the way switchgrass is not used for any human consumption, and therefore will not in anyway increase the price of meat or produce production.
I would now like to thank Uncle Sam for my exceptional education in this area
Melvin,
I agree, switchgrass is one fuel we can use and I believe that a variety of renewable sources is the way to go. The problem with ethanol is that it is highly corrosive on engine parts and cannot be pipelined. I have a friend at UL and they refuse to certify the gas pumps for ethanol because of this reason. It is also less efficient than gasoline resulting in more emmisions. Now, personally I think there are technologies for solving these issues, but because ethanol is not a clean burning fuel, the Al Gore crowd will try to put a stop to it.
FYI Everyone
The television channel PLANET GREEN debuts today.
I find this hilarious. How many tons of coal will be burned to broadcast this propaganda all over the country onto millions of giagantic flat screen TV’s?
Stalin,
You are correct about the corrosiveness of ethanol, that is why we don’t add Acetone to our fuel now (at least most people). That can be fixed very easily by having the auto industry ceramic coat the combustion chambers of every new car produced, and synthetic fuel lines, also the cost to have it done to existing cars is relatively inexpensive. It was less than 900 to have it done to my Ford Contour so I could run GAS/HHO mixture.
That minor investment would be a drop in the bucket compared to national fuel savings.
Melvin, I’m familiar with the government paying farmers NOT to grow crops, believe me. And the switchgrass theory sounds good, but I do want to hear a little more indepth about the pros and cons of ethanol. Are there legitimate concerns? Also, (I admit I know very little here, that’s why I’m asking), did I understand correctly (recently) that ethanol can be made from 2 separate sources, one preferred over another? I may sound like a complete idiot here, but if you’ll bear with me and educate me, I’d appreciate it.
There are many farms and plantations here in Georgia who are paid every year to leave fields laying bare. It’s seems extremely counterproductive and manipulative in the grand scheme of things, and really a source of wasteful government spending. Since the inception of these programs, I’ve never understood how NOT producing was better than producing. It seems to me that if there are crops like switchgrass that could be potentially a source of fuel, we should be making a lot of noise about it right about now.
I’m going to spring board off of Stalin’s #3…mainly, supply and demand.
Remember a week or so ago when Bush went to politely ask the Saudi’s to increase production of oil to drive down prices, and they politely said hell no? They said no because supply is still the same, there’s just more demand. The excess demand is coming from countries like India and China who have improved their GDP significantly and therefore raised their oil consumption because more people over there can afford cars.
With higher demand and no change in supply, price determines who can afford it. Oh, and lets not forget our printing press of a Treasury that has inflated the dollar beyond belief. Compare the value of the US dollar to that of the Euro. With that being said, it now takes more American dollars to buy foreign products such as oil.
To further add to our conflict, in regards to the new economies using more oil and driving up the demand and therefore the price of gas…think of how much we outsource. We are giving these contries the jobs that improve their economies. Don’t believe me, call for tech support…look at the window sticker on an Aveo…look at the labels at anything you buy at your local Wal Mart. The evidence is there.
Don’t get me wrong, I think this sucks…but at least there is a reason why. I’m not saying the government is innocent either, I’m pretty sure they promoted a lot of the outsourcing stuff.
Just something to think about next time you fill up.
Babs,
Currently there are literally dozens of sources for ethanol. The last set of tests even found we can produce millions of barrels just from the unused wood scraps from the logging industry.
EVERY plant grown on earth contains the needed ingredients to make cellulosic ethanol which is the most efficient to produce.
Stalin was completely correct about the main downside to current vehicles which is the corrosive factor which mainly comes from ethanol’s molecule structure which is what also gives it such a good flash point. It is also slightly less efficient than gasoline at the moment, but it has less of a carbon footprint.
Cars on the road already able to run “flex fuels” will be fine the way they are. Other cars will require some modification to run the ethanol without the corrosive effects. Producing new cars ready to run ethanol will not be a serious impact to the car companies because they already have the facilities in place to produce flex fuel vehicles.
Even if you just want to make the change for all new vehicles and leave current ones as is. the benefit would still remove our need for foreign oil.
The pipelines in place can handle the ethanol in most cases pipelines laid today have ceramic, or carbon fiber cores to prevent corrosion.
There is a huge downside t using cellulosic ethanol. OPEC, and the oil companies wont be able to buy new jets every year so lier might lose a little business.
Babs,
Ethanol is the same thing as grain alcohol. Basically anything that can be fermented into alcohol can be used as a fuel. Sugar, rice, corn, ect.
That sheds an entirely new light on the prospect of “runnin’ shine”
Melvin,
I drive a flex fuel car but trying to get ethanol in Chicago is a joke. I called the nearest gas station that had ethanol and they were only charging 30 cents less than gasoline. Because of the lower miles per gallon and the longer trek to get the E85, it’s cheaper for me to buy gas. Right now the only people benefiting from ethanol is the farmers because the price of corn is sky high. I hope this changes, because I would love to be eble to put home grown fuel in my car.
Stalin & Matt,
I agree with you both about supply and demand. That is the basic law of business, but when supply is being manually manipulated then all things aren’t equal. OPEC decides how much oil to provide, and therefore determines how much is available to feed the demand.
If anyone here is a history buff like I am you remember that Japan didn’t attack America because they wanted to invade. They wanted their oil supply to continue.
The biggest threat to our national security is depending on a foreign power for anything whatsoever. The United states has the ability to be a true self sufficient power and without fail or delay we need to get to that point.
Matt,
Good point. It’s only going to get worse as millions of Chinese and Indians start driving. The Indians are making a car for $4000 so more people can drive. You’ll spend more a month on gas than on the car payment!
Melvin,
You hit it on the head:
“The biggest threat to our national security is depending on a foreign power for anything whatsoever. The United states has the ability to be a true self sufficient power and without fail or delay we need to get to that point.”
Stalin,
I am happy that you drive that car I had to convert my everyday car myself. I know the pain of trying to get it at this time because the providers don’t see the money in it as the demand isn’t there.
I hate to say this.
That is where the government needs to jump start the system and create a demand and raw fuel supply to get the system running. I deplore the government regulating anything dealing with private industry, but in case where it can move us toward getting rid of outside influence we need it
Speaking of India and this subject specifically. Did any of you see the car they approved that runs on Compressed Air. That’s right Air.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6138972/
The car will run in France first, but is produced in India. The US has already called them unsafe because they don’t meet us crash test standards, but that raises a question for me.
Do motorcycles meet US crash test standards?
If the liberals would let Bush open up our reserve we would not need that dependence, but hey they just want the price to go up and keep poking fun at Bush for being such a bad president, something he is not.
Thanks, all of you. I understood it was basically grain alcohol, but I thought I had heard a debate lately about a different type made from a different source that was more user friendly to engines and the environment. Maybe I’m wrong on that.
Stalin, please don’t think that I’m one of those crazy enviro-wackos who wants to build windmills and solar farms everywhere, and please do not be so naive as to think that all liberals do. My opinion is that we need to have at least 80% nuclear power making up our energy supply and eventually move toward a hydrogen infrastructure for transportation.
In the interim, we need to be making fuel from coal, not making ethanol. Ethanol is a bogus pipe-dream, it’s not any kind of a feasible solution to our problems. Clean coal diesel is cleaner than gasoline or diesel from oil (forget about the supposed dirtiness of coal, it’s mostly a fabrication), it will be far cheaper for us, and all that money we do spend every day on fuel will go right back into the pockets of Americans, instead of the pockets of the OPEC oligopolists.
Ethanol will never be produced in the United States on any grand scale, because the cheap labor needed to produce it doesn’t exist here. Brazil, by contrast, runs almost all of their vehicles on ethanol, because cheap labor is abundant there. That, then, is the solution for them. However, the United States has a completely different set of resources. We do not have cheap labor and abundant territory on which to grow sugarcane (like Brazil). We also do not have enough oil for that to be our solution. What we do have is coal, thus, that will likely be our solution, in the interim.
Also, Stalin, I know how the price of oil is set. It’s pretty basic economics, however, that he who controls supply controls price. OPEC fixes the prices by limiting supply. It’s not as if it’s a competitive market, fixed to some imaginary demand curve, it’s an Oligopoly in which the members get together and decide to fix supply. This is illegal in the United States, but of course, OPEC doesn’t operate within the United States. The volatility of the regions oil is produced in and moved through also adds to this problem, and the speculators follow. Generally, however, the supply decisions of OPEC determine the stable price level, which is much higher than it should be.
Finally, CG was talking about the United States congress. That’s why I mentioned the 18 cent federal tax. I know that states tax gas, but it wasn’t relevant.
Thanks, Josh. The coal/ethanol debate was the one I was trying to pull out of this old brain.
Where there is an opportunity for someone to make a fortune, someone is going to try…guaranteed. With the resources here, we can certainly attempt to make something of them.
In regards to Hydrogen powered vehicles, they’re working on them but running into problems. Two problems in paticular, the hydrogen tanks for vehicles are currently very expensive to build and there aren’t very many suppliers to build them, and the filling stations would have to be built to handle the hydrogen and they can’t figure out a way to build them thats safe enough for general public use. To sum up hydrogen, we’re a long way off.
With the government kickstarting the switchgrass revolution, I believe thats a long way off. If they wanted to do something about these gas and diesel prices, they could have done this a long time ago but they have too many interests. The Big Three wouldn’t have liked this change before it got to be a problem for them. Of course we know that OPEC wouldn’t like it….we’re a big customer….they’ve gotta work harder to make anywhere close to what they make now. Then, whoever finances this escapade in the US is going to then have everyone by the cahonnes if they ever want to go up on the price (remember the “make a fortune” thing in the first part of this comment?). If the government does this program, they should probably go the USPS route and run it as a corporation.
Some people really won’t accept global warming no matter how much of the science is presented to them…I’ve debated this extensively in another thread and no amount of climatological evidence with alter their faith. As Josh said, their minds are already made up. So instead let me appeal to pragmatism…weaning America off of oil makes sense for economic and political decisions, as well.
Economically, we’ve all felt the crunch of high gas prices. Supply and demand (even artificially fixed by OPEC) is a reality, and with the Hubbert peak reached this decade these supply-demand curves won’t be artificial for long. Only by reducing demand for expensive oil will these prices go down, which simply means finding a new energy source. Opening up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is like spitting in the ocean; it would float us for slightly over one month at current US oil usage. Moreover, leading the way for green technology would mean a massive influx of jobs; and if we don’t do it, some other nation surely will take this investment opportunity while it still languishes.
Second, energy policy begets foreign policy. Sponsoring OPEC countries is shockingly bad for international stability. Our support of despotic regimes like the Saudis (remind me, where did 15 of the 19 9-11 hijackers come from?) only produces political blow-back in the end. The underlying cause of the current Iranian situation stems from installing the Shah to provide cheap oil to Western nations, only to be followed by a subsequent religious revolution from the angered masses.
Nuclear is not a bad way to go for now, but that too eventually has similar issues as oil. Approximately 10,000 new reactors would be needed for America’s current energy usage, which would use up our uranium supplies within 20 years. Breeder reactors get us a little further, but you still can’t get something for nothing. At best, it provides a bridge until we implement renewable energy technologies which we should be researching now.
Josh,
You make some good points. Clean coal is one way to mitigate our dependence on foreign energy, but to do it cheaply enough is another question. I’m going to disagree with you on ethanol. It’s not a matter of cheap labor, as most farms are highly automated. It’s a matter of what is the best use of the land. The UN is currently having a food or fuel debate when it comes to ethanol. I don’t think that there is one answer. Just as in investing, it’s best to diversify. Nuclear, hydrogen, ethanol, clean coal, domestic oil, wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, etc. There is no reason why we can’t go after all of these technologies. Solar works well in Arizona, while ethanol is abundant in the midwest. Necessity is the mother of all invention. OPEC is trying to keep oil prices just low enough for us to bitch and moan but not do anything about it. I think that policy is going to fail in the end and that the spirit of American ingenuity will prevail.
Mike, Stalin, I just read some interesting info about the future of nuclear energy, fusion. Fusion uses a much different fuel, usually deuterium, which is an isotope of hydrogen. This isotope is readily available from the oceans, and can be created synthetically, as well. The greatest thing about fusion, however, is it’s safety. It is theoretically impossible for a fusion reaction to get out of hand, because the process requires such exacting specifications. The second anything changes in the reaction, it instantly stops, because any change in the conditions in the reactor will render the reaction unable to continue, instead of becoming out of control, a potential problem with current fission reactors, even breeders. Apparently, scientists have also recently completed the first successful room-temperature fusion (better known as cold fusion), being that they measured a tiny amount of net energy from the experiment, which involved jetting a small stream (microns) of deuterium onto some sort of grid made up of heavy metals like palladium and gold. Hopefully the U.S. government pumps some real funding into these budding technologies, as they would really be the end of our energy woes, no?
Yep, constitution party here I come. I honestly do not care if McCain beats Obama, and am starting to believe that America needs a hard slap in the face to wake up to the reality of the universal deception that are plaguing this country.
I will not vote Obama, but I also will not vote McCain just to prevent Obama. They both are perfectly horrible.
Mike,
I’m all for alternative energy. Here in NY, Nate and I live not too far from a windmill farm, it’s absolutely awesome. Solar power is also a pretty incredible source of energy. The point is that I’m for alternate energy, but as for global warming, I’m sick of it being shoved down my throat. I drive an SUV, a Nissan Pathfinder to be exact, I absolutely adore it. It’s a great SUV that gets about 25 miles to the gallon, which if I may add is better then some cars. And the four wheel drive in the winter is a Godsend. NY winters can be harsh. I will probably never go back to a car, no need to. I would also never tell anyone what they should be driving, I don’t pay there bills and the same courtesy needs to be extended to me. That said I’m mourning the fact GM is stopping production on the Hummer.
As for LED lights, Nate mentioned that in our house we will be making the move to LED very soon. This new technology really is amazing.
I was psyched when I read this story on Google: “S.D. county approves rezoning for new oil refinery”
http://ap.google.com/arti.....AD9136DOG0
This out this morning, I thought you might be interested in McCain’s statement on the Cimate Change Act coming up for a vote reportedly today:
June 5, 2008
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) today released the following statement regarding S. 3036, The Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008:
“Global climate change is the most important environmental challenge facing not only our nation, but the entire world. I am confident that given the will, the federal government can be a lead advocate for ensuring that America is doing its part to reduce global warming, and join in the global effort that is needed to address this world-wide environmental issue.
“Like many of my colleagues, I believe this legislation needs to be debated, amended, improved, and ultimately, enacted. While my schedule precludes me from being in Washington, DC, tomorrow to cast my vote, if I were able, I would vote to invoke cloture on the substitute amendment. That does not mean I believe the pending bill is perfect, and in fact, it is far from it. For example, the provisions to impose Davis Bacon mandates should be removed. Most importantly, it must include provisions championed by Senator Graham and myself that would ensure that nuclear power, a proven and clean energy source, is included among the technologies supported in our efforts to address global warming. Nuclear energy is an emission free source of electricity for the nation, which is why it simply must be part of the comprehensive solution to addressing climate change, and if it is not, I could not support the legislation’s final passage.
“Unfortunately, despite the commitment and tireless efforts of the bill’s sponsors, Senators Lieberman and Warner, it appears that for now, the Senate, at the direction of the Majority Leader, will choose to put politics above policy, and Congress will fail to act yet again on this critical issue. But rest assured, we will not give up until we finally succeed in enacting needed, comprehensive cap and trade legislation to address this urgent problem.â€
CG,
I went out to my car one day about 6 months ago. I drive a GMC flex-fuel Yukon and I love it. On the windshield was a note that said. “Congratulations on you achievement of buying such a large automobile. Now why don’t you think about buying smaller more fuel effecient model to help the environment.”
It’s a good thing I didn’t find them. Not that I have to explain myself, but I use my car for sales calls and I have to deliver large samples that just won’t fit in a Prius…let alone me. I’m 6′4″ so most small cars just don’t work for me. Also, my office is only 3 miles away, so most people driving smaller cars are using more gas than me. I can say to them, “Get a job closer to home”. The whole thing is ridiculous.
I will consider buying the new Tahoe hybrid if it is available at a reasonable price when my lease is up.
Oh I just remembered this. Last summer I was at a stop light in my home town and some woman at a bus stop screamed at the top of her lungs, “Our soldiers are dying in Iraq so you can drive your damn SUV” Well I pulled over and had a nice little talk with her which is not appropriate for this forum. Craziness I tell you.
Go Stalin!!!
I have never had anyone do such a thing. We did have Magnetic flags that said “support our troops” stolen off our car though as it was parked on the college campus (go figure). Luckily Nate was in the car and got out to “correct” this jerk’s behavior, needless to say when Nate all 6′3″ of him step out and chased after him, the kid who had more metal in his face then a steel factory, claimed he was “boycotting the magnets”, I’ve never seen Nate so angry. As you can image he too was using choose words and had to correct the kid by explain to him it was steeling! The funniest part is he took a pink cancer survivor sticker that was mine, I had to wounder if he was “boycotting” that to.
In the end, the flags were returned, without question.
A Prius, a car that is bought and used in only liberal areas of the country, it is the “it” car for them. Funny thing is here in New York now, people have started to vandalize them because they do not like what those people stand for.
Stalin,
Hybrid Tahoe green car of the year, but liberals somehow still think oh its still a crappy SUV, even though it won the award of something they go crazy over.
SUV’ers:
While I certainly praise the industry for embracing fuel-efficient SUVs, they’re still not entirely unproblematic An accident that would normally just be a fender-bender between two sedans can cause injuries or even fatalities for someone in a sedan hit by an SUV…that’s just conservation of momentum.
The Department of Transportation actually asked Ford to stop manufacturing the Excursion because its mass and ground clearance were so high that in minor crashes it was frequently rolling over sedan hoods and crushing the driver. Nonetheless, I can see the utility of an SUV as an actual work vehicle…it’s more the urban drivers who drive an Escalade for the “bling” factor who seem a little less than virtuous.
Josh,
I totally agree that fusion is the way to go for future energy needs, but it’s technology that needs at least another 100 years of development. The standard Tokamak reactors are still yet to break even in energy input to energy output. The massive international ITER Super Tokamak reactor holds a lot more promise…but unfortunately our government in its infinite wisdom decide to zero the budget for our collaboration in that project.
I wouldn’t embrace the new cold fusion results just yet…there’s still a big problem with reproducibility. This has happened before, some working group claims extraordinary results only to find that no one else can actually perform the experiment successfully. It’s certainly worth investigating, though…both the palladium experiments and the sonoluminescence ones look promising.
It’s kinda funny. You have the liberals who make out Gore is a God, yet his ideas although not totally without merit are kinda flawed. However, you have the looney right with their head in the sand pretending there isn’t a problem, just because they like disagreeing with the liberals.
Going green isn’t just about global warming, it’s about making the planet a cleaner place to live. Surely that should be the goal for everyone, no matter if you’re left, right or middle of the road.
Well, nzpudding, where in the world have you been keeping yourself? Nice to see you back!
Life sometimes gets in the way of having fun Babs…LOL
Hey Democrats out there. No more complaining about high gas prices or energy independence, your party just shot down offshore drilling. You can’t run a 53′ tractor trailer on lithium batteries!
I also find this frightening. Obama is saying that the price of gas isn’t that bad, it’s just that it happened so suddenly and not gradually. God help us all.
nzpudding, don’t it just.
Stalin, I know, I know. Don’t it just make you wanna cry.
Stalin,
Compared to most other western countries gas in the US isn’t that bad at all.
Gas prices are going to keep going up so long as there’s instability in the Middle East. Obama’s plan for over there i.e. ‘talking to them’ might seem a little naive, but one thing’s for certain, to do nothing and to keep things as they are, which is what McCain is all about, then the gas prices are going to keep going up and up and up.
As for drilling offshore, sure that would be a solution, but it takes about 2 years for any benefits of that drilling to reach the consumers, so that won’t help with gas prices in the near future at all.
If you look around you how many things are made from plastics? and plastics come from oil. If the oil runs out, and one day it will as there isn’t an infinite supply of the stuff, then the world is pretty much screwed. If having high gas prices makes people think more about how they get from A to B, what vehicle they use, whether it be a gas-guzzler or not, then that’s not such a bad thing in the long run.
I think the Democrats are waiting for a Democratic President, so they can claim ownership of any benefits the Americans recieve, so it looks like they’re righting Bush’s wrongs.
I challenge any of you liberals to give a logical reasoning for NOT drilling off shore. I want to see statics, numbers, and educated arguments on this matter. I have yet to hear good reasoning on why America cannot use its own resources by drilling on it’s outer shell. Did you know that America is the world’s 3rd largest oil supplier? We could turn this oil crisis around in just a few years, but no, these whiny liberals shot down the latest bill to drill off our outer shell, unbelievable. I vote to throw all liberals off the island we call America.
nz,
We can’t be compared to most other western countries. We are competing with China and India who subsidize oil and gas. Furthermore, the US is much larger and spread out so we require more gas than say someone in the UK. I agree that any benefits from drilling will not be felt for several years, but that doesn’t mean we should not do it. If we start to put downward pressure on supply, then OPEC will try to increase output to discourage oil companies from spending the millions of dollars it takes to drill. It’s a constant game that they play, but I believe it ultimately comes down to national security and we must take that power out of their hands.
Regarding plasics, I’m in the plastics business so I am full aware of the effects of oil, especially on price. I provide a recycled plastic product that is an alternative to wood saving hundreds of thousands of trees a year. However, since the price of plastic keeps going up, it has become very difficult to compete with wood. There are non-oil based plastics, most made from corn, but they are currently expensive and not very versatile.
I am all for finding alternatives to oil, mostly to achieve energy independence, but we can’t do it at the expense of our economy. It will take decades to develop alternatives and in the mean time we need to drill here in the US to reduce our exposure to unstable oil producint countries and keep prices down.
There is absolutely no reason for not drilling offshore. The Dems are wrong for blocking it and the GOP are wrong for blocking a new tax on huge oil profits.
It isn’t just oil that’s crippling the economy and it won’t be oil that revives it.
I would safely say that until Bush buggers off from The White House nothing new will change. Both Bush and Cheney are Oil men and since Bush-Cheney seized office in 2000, the five oil giants have reaped $525 billion in profits. I think somebody is going to get a nice little retirement fund when they leave office.
nz:
What to you think the net effect of a special tax on oil companies will be??? They will slow down exploration. We are talking about exploration that costs billions of dollars. Where is their incentive to drill offshore if those profits will be stolen?
The whole Bush and his oil buddy’s story is old. If he really had pull, he could have convinced the Saudis to increase output. They told him to “bugger off”. Unless you have proof that Bush takes money from Oil companies, I suggest you drop it. It’s a convenient argument, but it just doesn’t play. The whole retirement thing is silly too.
Everyone needs to read this, because you won’t find it in the MSM. It’s a commentary by John Coleman, the founder of The Weather Channel regarding the Global Warming scam.
http://www.kusi.com/weath.....42304.html
Stalin, Nate mentioned this to me this morning. No wonder why I haven’t seen Heidi Cullen spouting off about global warming lately.
Stalin: Two points
1) There’s is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that if the oil companies got a special tax they’d slow down exploration, it’s insane to think that they would. They might not be getting as much profit as they are doing but they are getting significant profits, so there’s no need to reduce exploration at all.
The Bush and his oil buddy story might be old, but it’s still relevant, so NO I won’t drop it.
2) Just read that article and it’s quite a laugh. This guy wouldn’t be a card carrying Republican would he?.
Whilst he does make a point that Al Gore has sparked a mad frenzy amongst tree-hugging enviromentalist nutjobs, the planet is getting warmer and you don’t need to be a scientist to figure that one out. But the reason for it getting warmer is debateable. What the left and right loonies fail to mention when arguing and counter-arguing the global warming issue is the natural phenomenon of the Earths magnetic field which flips every couple of hundred thousand years, and which many scientist believe we’re in a reversal mode at the moment. Read the —> National Geographic Article And as any good scientist will tell you, the magnetic field plays a huge important role when it comes to weather and heating or cooling the Earth.
That aside, we should try and go green as much as possible not because we’re all about to suddenly choke to death on exhaust fumes but because it makes the environment cleaner and a better place to live. Surely that alone should be enough for Democrats and Republicans to find common ground, instead of bitching at each other like whiney little brats on who’s more right than the other.
I forgot to mention that I think the carbon credit idea is the biggest scam in recent history.
nzp,
1) You must be joking. If my company was taxed at a higher rate, I cannot go out and buy additional equipment to make more product. This same principle applies to oil companies. Oil exploration is a very high cost, high risk endeavor. In a free market society you can’t pick and choose which companies you are going to tax at a higher rate. Unless you want to start treating oil companies like cigarette companies and apply a sin tax. I would not be surprised if this happens.
2) You didn’t debate a single point in the article, all you did was label him a Republican. Good argument there.
Regarding the earths magnetic field, I do agree with you there. It is one of a handful of theories out there that everyone is ignoring thanks to Al Gore.
This is priceless.
http://tennesseepolicy.or.....cle_id=764
After spending a bloody fortune on “greening” his house after getting busted for his electric bill, he is actually using more electricity than before! When is everyone going to wake up and realize this guy is a scam artist? Oscar? Pulitzer? How about fraud charges?
Suck it Al Gore (CO2 that is)
I have to say, the most impressive thing about the article is the fact that it was written by John Coleman. He makes some interesting points, but he also makes some very mind boggling statements. For instance he repeatedly asserts that the global warming scare is responsible for high gas prices - but he never really explains this assertion. He does talk about rising high gas prices and some potential reasons, but they don’t really seem connected to global warming issues in any way.
And then at other points he falls back on his expertise to make statements that cannot be challenged by the layperson. Like when he poses the question about how the CO2 concentration in his own breath was significant enough to alter the globe if it were representative of the global air quality - and all he says is “It can’t. It just can’t.”
Which is all fine and good, he certainly knows more on the subject than I do. But since it’s obvious that some very educated people disagree with him, it’s hard for me to accept the argument “it just can’t” if he doesn’t qualify that.
Anyway it was an interesting read, it’s just that given some of the weaknesses in the article, it’s hard for me to take it’s strengths seriously.
Stalin.
I wasn’t aware your company was in the oil business.
Whilst I can see that specifically raising the ‘profit’ tax on certain companies might seem wrong, having gas prices as high as they are whilst these companies have made half a $Trillion in profits since Bush has been in office, is also wrong. —> Interesting read
Labelling the guy a Republican should be enough as to how I feel about the article. He’s obviously a global warming naysayer like every other Republican I’ve ever met, spoken to or seen on TV. I will give him his due and he does raise a few thought provoking statements. On the whole though he’s anti-Gore, just like what you are, and when you’re in that state of mind then your mind is biased as to how you see things because you don’t like the guy.
I watched Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth and it was so frigging boring it beggars belief. He’s mixed fact with hyportheticals and painted a doom and gloom picture of the planet…BUT…he has raised some very real concerns, which shouldn’t be ignored like what most Republicans try to do, just because Gore is a Democrat.
At the end of the day there are some very serious issues facing this planet and until Democrats and Republicans can stop bitching at each other for the sake of bitching, the issues are going to get ignored until it’s too late.
Ok, this is for all you guys here that know what you’re talking about on the energy issue. The New York Times did an article this morning on the politics of ethanol energy, and I would PLEASE like for you guys to give it a read, and give me an honest and unbiased analysis of it. It’s a two page article with a lot of specifics on corn ethanol, Brazilian sugar cane ethanol, and switchgrass. In other words, a bit out of my league, and I’d like to form an educated opinion on the subject. Obama and McCain apparently hold two very different opinions, and from what I read I know at least one opinion may be special interest related (not making accusations here, just noting). But in order for me to form an opinion, I’d like to know your opinion on the issue itself.
So at your convenience, please educate me on this.
http://www.nytimes.com/20.....saiBIHAK1g
nz
I never said I was in the oil business, but I am in the plastics business, an oil derivative. I don’t care whether Al Gore is a Republican or a Democrat, he’s a complete moron. I am not ignoring anything, I’m just questioning what’s in the cool-aid before I drink it. There is a big difference. Smart decisions need to be based on smart science.
Babs,
A pretty good article. I found it very funny that Obama opposes Brazilian ethanol on national security concerns. When is the last time we had a problem with Brazil. The fact that we are taxing Brazilian ethanol and subsidizing US corn producers is insane. Corn prices are at an all time high and corn farmers all living large, while food prices continue to rise for US consumers. Corn ethanol is one alternative energy source we can use, but it should not be the only one and it should not be subsidized. There is one very important problem that everyone seems to be ignoring. The Ogallala Aquifer supplies 30% of the irrigation for crops in the U.S. It is the largest aquifer in the world and it is already running dry. Farmers are already having to drill deeper and deeper wells to get at the water. By some estimates, it will run dry in 25 years. If we are going to significantly increase the amount of crops grown in the US to support both the food supply and energy needs, water will play a big factor…and nobody is talking about that.
Stali