If you're suggesting that Al Gore or John Kerry would have done anything to develop alternative energy, then your are a bigger fool then both of them put together.
George Bush's private residence is a green house, that cannot be said about the other two frauds.
Those two and the Clinton's tell people what they want to hear to get votes, not to actually act on anything they've said. They do not want to make America a better place, they want to surrender it to the world.
2007-11-19 00:18:43
·
answer #1
·
answered by John in AZ 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
This is one of the common complaint that I have about politicians. No matter what the subject is, they keep insisting that our answers lie in technology, whether its keeping health costs down with more efficient record keeping or education or the cause of the day.
In fact, in his last debate, Obama stated that part of the solution to the nuclear waste problem was technology. Apparently, he thinks that we can invent a fairy that can wave its magic wand and make all toxins non-toxic.
Ultimately, as gas and oil become more expensive, alternate fuel sources will become more practical. Even now they are emerging (We have Cape Wind on Cape Cod, which is looking to put a wind farm off-shore, but that is meeting with resistance).
I agree that for a variety a reasons, it should be a focus of the next Administration, Democrat or Republican. However, I would warn against some sort of instant solution. It's going to take time.
2007-11-19 00:03:05
·
answer #2
·
answered by Pythagoras 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
There is no need to develop anything new. We already have clean energy (wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, etc.).
However, all of them are more expensive than "dirty" energy. The market place is not ready to pay for them yet. We already have cars that run on electricity only; nobody buys them.
We already have all the technology we need, but nobody wants it.
Clinton had 8 years and didn't do jack sh_t, so blaming Bush is just a display of your ignorance and irrational hatred. Grow up.
2007-11-19 01:37:22
·
answer #3
·
answered by Aegis of Freedom 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Even our best scientists remain stumped on creating a singular clean alternative energy source. No source by itself appears anywhere near cost-efficient to harness and completely replace oil. It looks like the trick will be to create several alternative sources that decrease our demand on a particular finite resource such as oil. There are a lot of ideas already out there and picking up speed. They just need a bit more active support. I agree with you on this.
2007-11-18 23:56:30
·
answer #4
·
answered by Buying is Voting 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
10 yrs is too long to wait, we need an alternative source now! The sooner the better!
2007-11-19 00:05:06
·
answer #5
·
answered by Rock 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
They could do it but it would just be another damned lie from Washington. The vested interests are so strong and in intransigence to change so ingrained that I doubt anything would change.
2007-11-19 00:42:09
·
answer #6
·
answered by iwasnotanazipolka 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
More then likely ,It was Al Gores platform.. Had Bush not cheated in 2000 we would be half way there, I would think
2007-11-18 23:57:35
·
answer #7
·
answered by RELAX 4
·
0⤊
2⤋