English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

And keep money out of the pockets of Middle Easterners who seek to harm us?

You would think they would be all for renewable now and promoting against oil guzzling and petrol addiction, but no. Wouldn't a lot less Americans die and ensure a safer future and environment in the long run if we pushed to convert now?
Why be on the side of big business when you can be on the side of American Citizens?

2006-09-18 05:39:20 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

15 answers

Fear of change. That is the overarching point to conservatives. They don't want things to change.

2006-09-18 06:24:26 · answer #1 · answered by a4140145 4 · 0 3

It really isn't a political issue at all. Our oil addiction would not be solved overnight if renewable energy were to pop up tomorrow and work with everything we already own. The issue is how to deliver the new energy source and that is not an easy problem to solve. SUVs don't help here in USA - but China is going from 10-15% car ownership to almost 50% now - 1 billion Chinamen with cars is the new problem. If the US got off oil tomorrow - China would still fund the wacky Middle East with their growing need for oil.

2006-09-18 05:47:40 · answer #2 · answered by Genie 3 · 1 0

the great big BUT here, is THEN WHY DID WE SPEND THE NATIONS SURPLUS ON IRAQ? (plus billions and billions- ok the Nation's (now) DEFICIT)

that money could have been used to created the full turnaround in the US fuel industry, leaving the middle east to scratch for for thier own well fare instead of filling in the UAE with continued RECORD HIGH PROFITS!

*do you hear the star bangeled banner playing in the background?*
..and where is Osama anyway...? you mean the United States Marines cannot find this guy? where did he go, to Mars?
or is another behind the scenes agenda at work here?
(P.S. I'm not blaming the Marines- you guys rock- but the top leaders sometimes need to be questioned by the American people- yes, the ones the leaders (public servants) are supposed to be working for)

2006-09-18 05:59:25 · answer #3 · answered by omnimog 4 · 0 1

I think one reason is that often the numbers, for renewal resources, don’t add up & people advancing renewal resources (particularly solar power) let their wishful thinking drive they policy recommendations. However, in my opinion, you’re correct that we should move towards non-Middle Eastern power sources even if there is a substantial cost to it. We need to be more open-minded & supportive regarding alternative energy.

2006-09-18 05:52:39 · answer #4 · answered by Scalawag-101 2 · 0 0

Conservatives are bringing us Hydrogen power and waste grease BioDiesel.

The Bush Admin has been using the military to work with private industry on mainstreaming technology for BioDiesel production. The Navy has standardized on it and the production systems are spreading across the US. These systems take waste restaurant grease and convert it to diesel fuel and cosmetic-grade glycerine.

Bush has been working with the oil companies and GM to move us to a hydrogen power economy. GM has delivered the first hydrogen powered trucks to the military to prove the tech. The first hydrogen fueling stations have been opened in Washington D.C. and in other major cities. GM is producing hydrogen powered cars.

Bush is trying to free us from dependence on foreign oil.

If Democrats would stop stalling this effort, it would be much further along. They seem to be trying to delay it so that the newsies won't talk about it much, hoping to take credit themselves if they can get one of their own elected.

2006-09-18 05:41:04 · answer #5 · answered by speakeasy 6 · 3 1

Because we have seen the liberals like Ted Kennedy veto a windfarm off Martha's Vineyard because it would spoil his view. We've seen liberals complain that windfarms in other places would harm birds. We've seen the complaints against hydro-electric power. We've seen the prevention of building nuclear plants. We've seen Clinton put low-sulfer coal mining off limits with a stroke of a pen.

As for ethanol, we've seen the cost-benefit analysis that indicates it costs more and takes more energy to actually make it, and that taxpayers have to subsidize the difference.

Don't know why you think 'big business' is the bogeyman. They're not the ones preventing the usage of alternative energy.

2006-09-18 06:14:02 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Judging from your use of the term "petrol" I judge you are not from here and have been listening to too many liberals. If you wish to know who is against alternative forms of power, check out the wind farms that were to be built off the Massachusetts coast.
The libs all scream and holler about getting these projects started, but when they are started they scream and holler "Not in my back yard!"
Also, check out who it is blocking drilling for known deposits of oil.
Some people can't grasp the concept of using what you already have while you work on what you have not. All the fuels being worked on now require vehicles made for them, and 99.9% of the vehicles on the road today, and for the next ten years will require petroleum based fuel.

2006-09-18 06:03:49 · answer #7 · answered by eferrell01 7 · 1 1

So far those sources of energy are more expensive per watt. That's why business types aren't so interested.
Businesses will only invest in renewable energy projects when those projects will pay off.

But we need to look to the future, so hopefully high oil prices will spur more investment in renewable energy. I lean conservative and look forward to the development of new energy sources. Brazil has an interesting solution to oil, they use bio-gasoline for their cars. Good thinking, I need to look that up!

2006-09-18 05:45:29 · answer #8 · answered by n0witrytobeamused 6 · 2 2

You might try doing a little research on the subject before you use your party's talking points to claim cause and effect on a subject you obviously know little about.

You want to save gas?

New Gas Plan....Bush wants us to cut the amount of gas we use. The best way to stop using so much gas is to deport 12 million illegal immigrants! That would be 12 million less people using our gas. The price of gas would have to come down as a result.

2006-09-18 05:52:36 · answer #9 · answered by oklatom 7 · 2 1

I could never hope to give you the quality of an answer that speakeasy did. He was right. Kudos speakeasy!!

Notice how it was completely overlooked Jane by people who want you to believe that it is the Republicans who are negligent in this area.

I hope this wakes you up a bit to research the facts on issues of such importance in the future.

2006-09-18 05:54:31 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Because if the energy is renewable there is not reason to over charge people. If there is a risk of it running out they can charge you more and make money.

2006-09-18 05:45:17 · answer #11 · answered by amish_renegade 4 · 2 1

fedest.com, questions and answers