Ramirez is accurate about Obama’s narrow vision….but people need to know the “New Language” translations….“Green” means today that it is the home of ultra liberals and socialists, who moved out of old homes of “liberal” and “progressive”….and need to understand the FACT that if it’s “Green” there is no possible “Economy” now or future. It is a Black Hole to throw federal revenues and borrowed monies…..
The concept of “green” (or otherwise renewable energies) is a necessary evolution of our power generation. However, we currently lack the technology to make it implementable. What conservatives are lamenting is not the fact that we are moving towards that eventual evolution, but rather how the administration is fully willing to throw us off the cliff, expecting the parachute of Green to catch us. Unfortunately, that parachute is entirely too small, too feeble, and isn’t capable of catching us. It needs to be done over time. Throwing a mandate expecting xyz% of power generated to come from solar/wind by abc date is unrealistic (like in CA). And they can’t keep throwing federal cash at pet projects; they need to let the natural economic evolution to take place of its own accord. Oil reserves are finite, but it makes no sense to blindly ignore those reserves because of an ideological orientation. When Americans are hurting for jobs, and/or their wages are relatively stagnant, now is not the time to force mandates that will do nothing but raise the cost of basic and fundamental services. Look at CA for an example: Their energy costs are already 50% higher than the rest of the nation, and 4 million more people emigrated to other states from CA in the past decade than came in. And where are they coming from? The middle class… young families are leaving because of cost. How is forcing a costly mandate going to improve that situation?
Maybe, but a very distant future and like all possible futures it will have to be managed. Right now only a hair more then 7% of our home & work energy is from wind, solar, Hydroelectric and Geo-thermal. No transportation like gas and diesel. Get us up to say 15% and then you have a base or a infrastructure to work with, right now, I don’t see anything like that.My attitude of Obama is that his narcissism makes him do a lot of dump things, like his green programs, to try and intimatate the Supreme Court, to his comment on the Zimmerman\Martin issue, to raising taxes on small business that creates most of the jobs in this country, to a health care legislation that will not pass the Supreme Court, add your own.
The “accuracy” of Ramirez, and other right-wingers, was perfectly demonstrated during "W"’s little war, when a cruise missile aimed at Baghdad, landed on the shore of Saudi Arabia.
You mean the real liberal world. If it takes that many more people to create the energy, I hate to see how much that energy is going to cost the public! You think oil prices are high now wait and see how high the price of wind and solar electric is once green agenda people take away oil and coal before we are ready for more green electric.
@ Vent: If we had higher efficiency on our renewables, I would agree with you. But at our current rate of gathering, it will take decades or longer to just recoup the cost of that investment. Not only that, but to power 100 amps of continuous service to a home 24 hours a day with solar … well, right now we don’t have that capability. And we won’t for a while. But forcing it on us in the form of making the alternative more expensive is inappropriate and unethical. Here’s another example. I don’t remember where I read this, but in order for hybrid cars to break even with gasoline (when we’re talking about fuel costs, energy costs, and legacy costs) in “efficiency,” gasoline would have to cost around $12 a gallon. Not really that great when put into that perspective.@ Eryx: On some things I am a moderate. On others I’m extremely conservative. And… others I’m liberal. Stem Cell: Allow it (liberal). Abortion: only allow in certain cases (moderate). Finances: Absolute fiscal hawk (straight up conservative). This is an issue that falls in the moderate to conservative area, simply because the evolution of the technology is being perverted. You don’t make the alternative more appealing by making the primary more unappealing. That’s stupid. You make the alternative more appealing by… making it more appealing. I’m a firm believer in the power of private industry. Where someone believes there will be a chance at making a profit, someone will invest the money. There is profit to be had with renewables; just let it take its natural course. Stop forcing the evolution.
disgustedtaxpayer about 12 years ago
Ramirez is accurate about Obama’s narrow vision….but people need to know the “New Language” translations….“Green” means today that it is the home of ultra liberals and socialists, who moved out of old homes of “liberal” and “progressive”….and need to understand the FACT that if it’s “Green” there is no possible “Economy” now or future. It is a Black Hole to throw federal revenues and borrowed monies…..
Wraithkin about 12 years ago
The concept of “green” (or otherwise renewable energies) is a necessary evolution of our power generation. However, we currently lack the technology to make it implementable. What conservatives are lamenting is not the fact that we are moving towards that eventual evolution, but rather how the administration is fully willing to throw us off the cliff, expecting the parachute of Green to catch us. Unfortunately, that parachute is entirely too small, too feeble, and isn’t capable of catching us. It needs to be done over time. Throwing a mandate expecting xyz% of power generated to come from solar/wind by abc date is unrealistic (like in CA). And they can’t keep throwing federal cash at pet projects; they need to let the natural economic evolution to take place of its own accord. Oil reserves are finite, but it makes no sense to blindly ignore those reserves because of an ideological orientation. When Americans are hurting for jobs, and/or their wages are relatively stagnant, now is not the time to force mandates that will do nothing but raise the cost of basic and fundamental services. Look at CA for an example: Their energy costs are already 50% higher than the rest of the nation, and 4 million more people emigrated to other states from CA in the past decade than came in. And where are they coming from? The middle class… young families are leaving because of cost. How is forcing a costly mandate going to improve that situation?
OnTarget about 12 years ago
Maybe, but a very distant future and like all possible futures it will have to be managed. Right now only a hair more then 7% of our home & work energy is from wind, solar, Hydroelectric and Geo-thermal. No transportation like gas and diesel. Get us up to say 15% and then you have a base or a infrastructure to work with, right now, I don’t see anything like that.My attitude of Obama is that his narcissism makes him do a lot of dump things, like his green programs, to try and intimatate the Supreme Court, to his comment on the Zimmerman\Martin issue, to raising taxes on small business that creates most of the jobs in this country, to a health care legislation that will not pass the Supreme Court, add your own.
Dtroutma about 12 years ago
The “accuracy” of Ramirez, and other right-wingers, was perfectly demonstrated during "W"’s little war, when a cruise missile aimed at Baghdad, landed on the shore of Saudi Arabia.
Heavy B about 12 years ago
Oil subsidies>Green subsidies.
SpicyNacho Premium Member about 12 years ago
You mean the real liberal world. If it takes that many more people to create the energy, I hate to see how much that energy is going to cost the public! You think oil prices are high now wait and see how high the price of wind and solar electric is once green agenda people take away oil and coal before we are ready for more green electric.
red state about 12 years ago
This clown is blind and the cartoon depicts the Jack@$$ that B.O. is!!! GREAT JOB….as usual, Mr. Ramirez!!!!
“Who is the bigger fool….the FOOL or those who voted for the fool?!”
red state about 12 years ago
Apparently, “THEY” all have blinders on and this is exactly how one repeats history…a FAILED history.
Wraithkin about 12 years ago
@ Vent: If we had higher efficiency on our renewables, I would agree with you. But at our current rate of gathering, it will take decades or longer to just recoup the cost of that investment. Not only that, but to power 100 amps of continuous service to a home 24 hours a day with solar … well, right now we don’t have that capability. And we won’t for a while. But forcing it on us in the form of making the alternative more expensive is inappropriate and unethical. Here’s another example. I don’t remember where I read this, but in order for hybrid cars to break even with gasoline (when we’re talking about fuel costs, energy costs, and legacy costs) in “efficiency,” gasoline would have to cost around $12 a gallon. Not really that great when put into that perspective.@ Eryx: On some things I am a moderate. On others I’m extremely conservative. And… others I’m liberal. Stem Cell: Allow it (liberal). Abortion: only allow in certain cases (moderate). Finances: Absolute fiscal hawk (straight up conservative). This is an issue that falls in the moderate to conservative area, simply because the evolution of the technology is being perverted. You don’t make the alternative more appealing by making the primary more unappealing. That’s stupid. You make the alternative more appealing by… making it more appealing. I’m a firm believer in the power of private industry. Where someone believes there will be a chance at making a profit, someone will invest the money. There is profit to be had with renewables; just let it take its natural course. Stop forcing the evolution.
Larhof52 about 12 years ago
Anybody but Obama:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-4gnNz0vc