Homerglide,
Not debating heartfelt opinions and standing up for your beliefs is what would be dishonorable. Allowing ourselves to be shouted down and run over by leftists is what is bringing down this country.
Oh your #2, When not winning in the war of ideas change the subject, and redirect. I knew it would get around to being George Bush's fault.
Spending money on research is not the problem, it's the radical changes that people are trying to propose based on unproven theories.
Some sure do have an agenda to take us down from within and they are in power right now.
Radical changes eh? What radical changes have you faced from the government due to global warming, more fuel efficient cars?
Neal
How about the EPA basically shutting down the coal industry and several power plants that rely on coal. How about the proposed "cap & trade" legislation that they tried to ram through. How about the further proposed regulations on heavy trucks, that will make shipping much more expensive. How about not basically shutting down federal land leases for energy exploration both oil and natural gas. Cheap energy fuels America's economy and we have lot's of it we wont go after.
What about wasting billions on so called "Green Energy" companies like Solyndra where many of the higher ups in the companies had ties to fundraising for the current administration.
Nothing wrong with "Green Energy" as long as it works in the free market without taxpayer subsidies. I'm all for new technology and innovation, I just believe it has to make it in the free market, not politically funded agendas.
.
Coal needed a huge wakeup call, the plants were gigantic pollution generators. Most of the coal plants that have been rejected are by state governmental authorities, not the EPA, and not to mention the declining economy in 2008 or so being responsible for many cancellations. That said coal has cleaned up significantly, and still remains the dominate power generation source. The bigger influence now is that the market price of natural gas is phasing out desire for new coal plants.
Cap and trade didn't make it though, therefore no radical change....
I haven't heard that new emissions on heavy trucks has increased shipping costs. Do you have some examples or studies showing so? I would wager the price of fuel is far more significant in terms of radical price changes for shipping that emissions regulations.
The total number of leases of federal lands is hovering right around 50,000, the same area it has been for several decades. Number of new leases has declined, however the total number of acres leased is right around 40 million, where it has been for the past several decades. That would indicate that most new leases are for larger parcels of federal land than previously applied for. It also shows an interesting trend towards conglomerations. There are fewer lease applicants for the same number of acres. If you look at the number of productive well bores on federal land the number is continually increasing. Thus we have the same number of acres leased for the past few decades but increased the number of wells by 40% or so. If that indicates any radical change, it is that we are ever increasing our production on federal lands, basically the opposite of what you infer by saying that we are shutting down federal lands.
There certainly was cronyism going on with some of the green energy deals, no question.
Well many new green technologies require taxpayer subsidies to get into place. I see nothing wrong with that, after all we give huge amounts of government dollars to the old guard of energy production companies. To no invest in the beginning of new technologies is awfully short sighted, especially looking at the history of coal, natural gas, and nuclear power when they first came about. I do agree that removing politics from new tech funding is a great idea however, I'm all for that. We should also be massively investing in nuclear production. That's the part of the industry that has been hamstrung by government.
Neal