Maybe my last wasn’t as clear as I’d hoped…
Far be it from me to advocate policy from an administration that is ambiguous in its design or presentation. I don’t think we should push “environmentalism” with the sole goal of “energy independence”. I just think that a party like the GOP, which is currently under the gun to maintain any degree of control in American politics, could make a lot of ground by taking a “pro-environment” stance with clean and alternative fuel development and lower reliance on fossil fuels (which we get the bulk of from unreliable sources like OPEC or South America or Russia).
I simply don’t understand why the GOP would hesitate to make this kind of play in a political and social climate (pardon the pun) that is obsessed with environmental issues… there are NO down-sides. With little to no outlay of funds, the Government can promote lower dependence on oil with incentives for small “carbon footprints” in industry and the private sector. Where the Government CAN take a page from the past (as demonstrated by Ryan, most recently… but by ME in ‘01) is to spend whatever it takes to fund a new “Manhattan Project” geared at a viable, renewable and affordable source of energy… be it cold fusion, massive development of existing geo-thermal, solar, marine or wind energy, or some kind of hybrid of any of the above.
Simply diverting funds to a national program of converting existing production, transportation and distribution of gasoline to hydrogen fuels would solve 59% of all national transportation and infrastructure energy needs in less than 20 years… more than enough time for the automotive industry to begin production of hydrogen-fuel vehicles. This innovation alone would eliminate 9 to 12 MILLION barrels of oil that we MUST import into the country EVERY DAY, and it could be done in less than a generation! No magic formula needed, no elusive new technology to discover, no new science or theoretical hocus-pocus required.
The US would, once again, be ON TOP of the global rush to utilize this technology and commercial developments, and as such, we could (initially, at least) lead the world in the production and EXPORTATION of hydrogen to the world markets (as was the case with helium during the Age of Dirigibles in the 1930’s). It has been patently shown that H2 is no more dangerous than gasoline as far as the consumer use of it as a fuel (hydrogen is flammable, but not explosive, unlike oxygen and gasoline fumes), and it is FAR less toxic or poisonous to people and the environment. There are NO residual pollutants resulting from the combustion of H2, the only results being PURE water and heat… NOTHING ELSE!
Where is the flaw in this agenda as a national energy directive? Where is the downside to this as a national security action to reduce our dependence on foreign fuels? Where does this compromise the GOP platform as I understand it to read?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Look, the reason I oppose Al is because his science is bunk (and I suspect he knows that). And his idea of a "solution", in ratifying Kyoto, would spell economic disaster for our economy (in fact only Romania, out of the entire world, has ratified those protocols). So let's not drag him into a discussion that we otherwise agree on - he's a weasily little self promoting weenie who's running around trying to convince the world that if we don't use better light bulbs then the earth will simultaneously combust in about ten minutes. And he doesn't deserve a seat at this or any other serious discussion on energy independence, even if one side effect of his conservation advocacy would be a small reduction in hostile foreign oil source (not to mention conservation, even if we all were good stewards is still adressing the symptoms, rahter than the disease).
On the GOP - check out a fairly new book by Newt Gingrich entitled, "Contract With The Earth." I haven't read it, but in hearing him discuss it, it would seem that he has layed out a blue print for a common sense way the GOP can take back (given Teddy Roosevelt was a big conservationist)the issue of the enviroment. What do you want to bet that national security is one of his "common sense" approaches? But you're right on Republicans missing the boat on this issue - he's the only brand name GOP member that's even broached the subject. But, he is a big name in the party still, so maybe this will be just the begining ... we will see.
FR
I'm not sure if you'll read this in time, but Glenn Beck (the flat out most entertaining conservative in the media - he actually IS funny as where Olberhmann only tries, and his ratings show it) is having Mitt Romney on tonight on his 5 night a week 1 hour CNN show (yes, they hired a REAL conservative - they had to, they were getting crushed by FOX). This is in addition to his 3 hour radio program that currently ranks 3rd nationally - I think you guys would really like this guy, he sounds a lot like us. ANYWAY - one of the three main points of discussion he has for Mitt, along with Iraq and border security is quote, "Why don't we have a moon shot style program in search for energy independence?" And it will be couched in terms of national security needs.
Could it be ... we're getting ripped off? If that's the case then I'll let be sure to let Beck know to expect rapid fire emails, texts, and phone calls demanding that he give the brothers Foster proper credit ...he he.
FR
Post a Comment