Not a big fan...
- Thread starter Onceler
- Start date
Yeah, I've noticed President McCain talking about a real energy policy as well. Even understanding that warming is an issue and that we need to direct energy toward replacement fuels, not just to stem terrorism, but also for our future.
evince
Truthmatters
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_presidential_campaign,_2000
Energy: The Bush campaign supports a comprehensive energy reform bill which includes initiatives for energy conserving technologies as well as decreasing the foreign dependence on oil through increased domestic production and the use of non-fossil fuel based energy production methods.
Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and other domestic fields would decrease dependence on oil imports, particularly from the Middle East. However, many environmentalists hold that it will produce such small amounts of petroleum as to be effectively useless and will needlessly harm the environment.
Opponents of such drilling recommend alternate courses of action such as to complete research on and implement as a matter of urgency alternative, safe and renewable sources of energy such as solar, wind and tidal power - but not nuclear. Although perhaps requiring greater initial investment, in the long run these are now accepted by many informed environmentalists and scientists as being the most viable alternative to what they see as the vigorously anti-environmental approaches of the Bush administration.
Supporters of drilling in ANWR argue that the Administration has agreed to a number of measures to minimize the impact of drilling on the Arctic environment. For example, roadways would be constructed of ice that would melt in the spring, when activity on the roads would cease. Also, supporters say that the total surface disturbance due to drilling would be limited to not more than 2,000 acres (8 km²).
I dont trust McCain any more than Bush on the issue.
Energy: The Bush campaign supports a comprehensive energy reform bill which includes initiatives for energy conserving technologies as well as decreasing the foreign dependence on oil through increased domestic production and the use of non-fossil fuel based energy production methods.
Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and other domestic fields would decrease dependence on oil imports, particularly from the Middle East. However, many environmentalists hold that it will produce such small amounts of petroleum as to be effectively useless and will needlessly harm the environment.
Opponents of such drilling recommend alternate courses of action such as to complete research on and implement as a matter of urgency alternative, safe and renewable sources of energy such as solar, wind and tidal power - but not nuclear. Although perhaps requiring greater initial investment, in the long run these are now accepted by many informed environmentalists and scientists as being the most viable alternative to what they see as the vigorously anti-environmental approaches of the Bush administration.
Supporters of drilling in ANWR argue that the Administration has agreed to a number of measures to minimize the impact of drilling on the Arctic environment. For example, roadways would be constructed of ice that would melt in the spring, when activity on the roads would cease. Also, supporters say that the total surface disturbance due to drilling would be limited to not more than 2,000 acres (8 km²).
I dont trust McCain any more than Bush on the issue.
Last edited:
Where did I underestimate its importance, you illiterate slob?
Topspin
Verified User
Good Luck
New member
I would like to know why "Global warming is good" thread is placed under energy policy. Energy policy is not remotely part of the topic. It is a discussion on some potential advantages of global warming - such as a northwest passage - and whether civilization will survive the climactic shifts that continued global warming will cause.
Or is it so ingrained that man is causing global warming, any mention is automatically assumed to be part of our energy policy?
Or is it so ingrained that man is causing global warming, any mention is automatically assumed to be part of our energy policy?
Battleborne
Terminator
Good point....
I was wondering the same thing...I believe it boils down to the PC thingee...everyone has lost individual thought and places everything into one box...one that they relate to on political philosophy..or is that agenda...
I was wondering the same thing...I believe it boils down to the PC thingee...everyone has lost individual thought and places everything into one box...one that they relate to on political philosophy..or is that agenda...
Because if you convince people it is good it will change policy in what arena?
Good Luck
New member
Don't you mean prevent policy change? I thought the reason for change in energy policy was to address anthropogenic global warming. But if we become convinced GW is good, then we DON'T want to change what is producing the good, do we?
And that relationship works ONLY if one accepts blindly the assertion that our past and current energy policy has shit to do with global warming.
OTOH, getting off the foreign oil tit is a good energy policy no matter what it does with respect to GW. And that is worth discussing, along with proposals how to change energy policy to that end, in a forum set aside for such discussions.
Anyway, it is an argument for or against specific energy policy.
Personally I think it is mostly worthless to argue about and that we have about a billion other reasons to implement much of the same policy that are stronger and not based on "consensus". Argue what works like national defense, strong economic future, repositioned for future even longer "superpower status" for one group, talk about the trees with the other. Throw in the ManBearPig for even other groups.;
Just don't "exaggerate" as Gore told me he thinks is "all good" (paraphrased) so long as it scares people into doing what he wants.