Who will be the GREENEST President? - Page 4 - GreenHybrid

Mark E Smith · #31 (**permalink**) 05-07-2008, 09:45 AM

I dont understand the enviros have gotten their way. We are not drilling and we are not building new refineries. Gas has gone through the roof, hurting the SUV crowd. Our only choice is to buy from people who hate us and pay through the nose. The greenest president has yet to come forth. A sane plan that uses the rest of OUR oil while transitioning to a more sustainable fuel is what we need. The Dems want to go back to the 19th century and the Repubs have their heads in the sand. Energy drives our economy we are setting up for a BIG fall.

Billyk · #32 (**permalink**) 05-08-2008, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark E Smith

I dont understand the enviros have gotten their way. We are not drilling and we are not building new refineries. Gas has gone through the roof, hurting the SUV crowd. Our only choice is to buy from people who hate us and pay through the nose. The greenest president has yet to come forth. A sane plan that uses the rest of OUR oil while transitioning to a more sustainable fuel is what we need. The Dems want to go back to the 19th century and the Repubs have their heads in the sand. Energy drives our economy we are setting up for a BIG fall.

Well said.

finman · #33 (**permalink**) 05-09-2008, 07:04 AM

Not well said.

gumby · #34 (**permalink**) 05-09-2008, 10:03 PM

Somewhere in-between?

300TTto545 · #35 (**permalink**) 05-11-2008, 04:25 AM

Regarding Bob's list. I would like to know what GWB did to "undo" the 80 mpg car program. I would also like to know what exactly Clinton accomplished for the environment. We like to think he did something but what my memory has is that he spent a billion dollars on handouts to the big three and got nothing out of it.

Results are what matters and oil was very cheap during his term. The stagnation of CAFE and the rise of the SUV were under his watch. It didn't change during GWB but the problem was really a 90s one.

Now GWB has a terrible environmental record as well as a terrible understanding of science. But let's not pretend that Clinton was so green. All 3 candidates are more concerned about GW than GWB ever was. Who will make it a priority? I think McCain will because of the security issue. The security and economic issues are far more pressing and short term than GW is (IMO). You really probably need nuclear power to get there in any kind of reasonable time line. You probably can't be saddled with excessive regulation and NIMBY issues with nuclear - and arguably the democrats have a history and connections to strong anti-nuclear forces.

Mark E Smith · #36 (**permalink**) 05-11-2008, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Democratic proposals for changing energy policy. Those call for:

— Ending billions of dollars in tax breaks for big oil companies.

— Forcing the oil companies to do their part by investing some of their profits in clean and affordable alternative energy.

— Protecting the American people from price gougers and greedy oil traders who manipulate the market.

— Temporarily stopping the diversion of oil to the national Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is already 97 percent full.

— Standing up to the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and other oil-producing nations that are working together to keep oil prices high.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354871,00.html

Ending "billions of dollars" of tax breaks will reduce oil prices? Sounds like a formula for higher prices

Forcing the oil companies to "do their part" How, with tax breaks?

Protecting the American people from "price gougers and greedy oil traders" Oil is an INTERNATIONAL commodity, how do you control this?

Stopping the diversion of oil to the national Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This is somewhat a good idea, until we have a oil embargo from one of the OPEC countries.

Standing up to the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. Yup we will all stand up and shake our collective fist at them. Really, they are powerful because we REFUSE to develop our VAST oil reserves that would directly challenge their control.

Forming a drum circle or singing "kum ba ya" will not solve our energy problem.

again Tempus non reparabilis fugit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempus_fugit

bwilson4web · #37 (**permalink**) 05-11-2008, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 300TTto545

Regarding Bob's list. I would like to know what GWB did to "undo" the 80 mpg car program. ...

Fair enough:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...554/426?ck=nck

Quote:

Science 18 January 2002:
Vol. 295. no. 5554, pp. 426 - 427
DOI: 10.1126/science.295.5554.426
Prev | Table of Contents | Next
News of the Week

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH:
Bush Trades Hybrid for Hydrogen Model

David Malakoff and Robert F. Service Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham announced last week that he is junking the Clinton Administration's effort to build superefficient cars in favor of building vehicles powered by pollution-free hydrogen fuel cells. Abraham released no budget details of the new program, but analysts say most of the old program's research efforts will continue. The deadlines for getting a car on the road, however, have been pushed way back.
. . .

This is what GW defunded in January 2002:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partner...on_of_Vehicles

Quote:

The 80 mpg diesel-hybrid GM Precept
The 72 mpg diesel-hybrid Ford Prodigy
The 72 mpg diesel-hybrid Chyrsler ESX-3

This ranks right up there with Reagan ripping the solar collectors off the White House and gutting Carter's energy programs.

Bob Wilson

bwilson4web · #38 (**permalink**) 05-11-2008, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark E Smith

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354871,00.html
...
again Tempus non reparabilis fugit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempus_fugit

Given that "Fox" has become all but the press office for the Republican Party, the best answer starts with a direct quote from the Democratic Party:
http://www.democrats.org/a/national/...onment/energy/

Quote:

...
American families should not have to pay the price for a failed national energy policy. They deserve an energy policy that creates a cleaner and stronger America that reduces our dependence on foreign oil and also creates new jobs for American workers. By clearing the pathways to innovation, investing in our workers and infrastructure, and providing American consumers with broader, more responsible choices, the Democratic plan will provide the tools to help move America forward, toward real energy security for the 21st century. ...

If the Democratic Party goals don't have enough specifics, it is because the Democratic Party and Republican Party conventions have not been held and their platforms for 2008 have not been written. Taking the speculations of a notorious, anti-Democratic Party "Fox" would be just as unfair as citing a notorious, anti-Republican Party press office. We really don't need "dueling propagandists."

Perhaps we might start with citing the specific campaign statements or candidate actions and do a compare and contrast. If we use original sources and our own minds to evaluate proposals and actions, we will be on safe ground. But in politics, it is very easy to go "over the edge." So keep it on facts and data, we'll all get to explore and understand our respective points of view.

As for quotes:

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." - Benjamin Franklin

Bob Wilson

Mark E Smith · #39 (**permalink**) 05-11-2008, 09:56 AM

Just as NBC CBS and ABC are anti Republican, right? Fox is reporting the comments of the Democratic party on the failure of the non existent energy policy. An energy policy except for the blocking of the Democrats we would have been drilling in ANWAR and of the coasts. Building new refineries and nuclear power plants. Developing wind and other alternatives, instead the Democrats want a campaign issue, not a solution. I guess the reason Fox is so hated is because they present BOTH sides, unlike the other "news" sources.

Mark E Smith · #40 (**permalink**) 05-11-2008, 10:15 AM

Quote:

As President, I'll propose a national energy strategy that will amount to a declaration of independence from the fear bred by our reliance on oil sheiks and our vulnerability to the troubled politics of the lands they rule. When we reach the limits of military power and diplomacy to contain the dangers of that cauldron of burning resentments and extremism, energy security is our best defense. We won't achieve it tomorrow, but we must achieve it in our time.

The strategy I propose won't be another grab bag of handouts to this or that industry and a full employment act for lobbyists. It will promote the diversification and conservation of our energy sources that will in sufficient time break the dominance of oil in our transportation sector just as we diversified away from oil use in electric power generation thirty years ago; and substantially reduce the impact of our energy consumption on the planet. It will rely on the genius and technological prowess of American industry and science. Government must set achievable goals, but the markets should be free to produce the means. And those means are within our reach.

Energy efficiency by using improved technology and practicing sensible habits in our homes, businesses and automobiles is a big part of the answer, and is something we can achieve right now. And new advances will make conservation an ever more important part of the solution. Improved light bulbs can use much less energy; smart grid technology can help homeowners and businesses lower their energy use, and breakthroughs in high tech materials can greatly improve fuel efficiency in the transportation sector. We need to dispel the image of conservation that entails shivering in cold rooms, reading by candlelight, and lower productivity. Americans have it in their power today to contribute to our national security, prosperity and a cleaner environment. They understand the dangers we face, and are prepared to respond to appeals to patriotism that explain how we can free ourselves from them.

We need not wait for another age, in which science fiction becomes every day reality. Flexible-fuel vehicles aren't futuristic pie in the sky. We can easily deploy such technology today for less than $100 per vehicle; and we must develop the infrastructure necessary to take full advantage. We were able to overcome the challenges of putting seatbelts, airbags, and computer technology in practically every car. We can provide fuel options and improve the fuel efficiency of our vehicle fleet by making them out of high tech materials that improve their strength and safety. We are doing that very thing right now to beat our foreign competitors in the aerospace industry.

Alcohol fuels made from corn, sugar, switch grass and many other sources, fuel cells, biodiesel derived from waste products, natural gas, and other technologies are all promising and available alternatives to oil. I won't support subsidizing every alternative or tariffs that restrict the healthy competition that stimulates innovation and lower costs. But I'll encourage the development of infrastructure and market growth necessary for these products to compete, and let consumers choose the winners. I've never known an American entrepreneur worthy of the name who wouldn't rather compete for sales than subsidies.

America's electricity production is for the most part petroleum free, and the existing electric power grid has the capacity to handle the added demand imposed by plug-in hybrid vehicles. We can add more capacity and improve its reliability in the years ahead. Nuclear energy, renewable power, and other emission free forms of power production can expand capacity, improve local air quality and address climate change. I'll work to promote real partnerships between utilities and automakers to accelerate the deployment of plug-in hybrids.

With some of the savings from cutting subsidies for industries that can stand on their own, we can establish a national challenge to improve the cost, range, size, and weight of electric batteries for automobiles. Fifty percent of cars on the road are driven 25 miles a day or less. Affordable battery-powered vehicles that can meet average commuter needs could help us cut oil imports in half. The reward will be earned through merit by whomever accomplishes the task, whether a laboratory in the Department of Energy, a university, a corporation or an enterprising young inventor who works out of his family's garage.

There is much we can do to increase our own oil production in ways that protect the environment using advanced technologies, including those that use and bury carbon dioxide, to recover the oil below the wells we have already drilled, and tap oil, natural gas, and shale economically with minimal environmental impact.

The United States has coal reserves more abundant than Saudi Arabia's oil reserves. We found a way to cut down acid rain pollutants from burning coal, and we can find a way to use our coal resources without emitting excessive greenhouse gases.

We have in use today a zero emission energy that could provide electricity for millions more homes and businesses than it currently does. Yet it has been over twenty-five years since a nuclear power plant has been constructed. The barriers to nuclear energy are political not technological. We've let the fears of thirty years ago, and an endless political squabble over the storage of nuclear spent fuel make it virtually impossible to build a single new plant that produces a form of energy that is safe and non-polluting. If France can produce 80% of its electricity with nuclear power, why can't we? Is France a more secure, advanced and innovative country than we are? Are France's scientists and entrepreneurs more capable than we are? I need no answer to that rhetorical question. I know my country well enough to know otherwise.

Let's provide for safe storage of spent nuclear fuel, and give host states or localities a proprietary interest so when advanced recycling technologies turn used fuel into a valuable commodity, the public will share in its economic benefits.

I want to improve and make permanent the research and development tax credit. I want to spend less money on government bureaucracies, and, where the private sector isn't moving out of regulatory fear, to form the partnerships necessary to build demonstration models of promising new technologies such as advanced nuclear power plants, coal gasification, carbon capture and storage, and renewable power so we can take maximum advantage of our most abundant resources. And I'll make it a national mission to develop a catalyst capable of breaking down carbon dioxide into useful chemical building blocks, and rendering it a new source of revenue and opportunity.

America competes in a global economy where innovation and entrepreneurship are the pillars of prosperity. The competition is stiff and the stakes are high. We have the opportunity to apply America's technological supremacy to capture the export markets for advanced energy technologies, reaping the capital investment and good jobs it will provide. Our innovators, scientists, entrepreneurs and workers have the knowledge, resources, and drive to lead the way on energy security, as we have in so many other world-changing advancements. The race has always been to the swift, and America must be first to market with innovations that meet mankind's growing energy and environmental needs. Again, government should set the standards, and leave it to the marketplace to win the race.

From John McCains Energy speech

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/...D8D177947F.htm