...have any of our illustrious candidates spoken of how they'll improve on our non-existant energy policy?
Because this shit is scary.
Really.
I mean it.
Shut the f**k up about the petty stuff. We're completely hosed if we don't get this right.
(edited once to correct word usage)
Hey, enough about religion, typical white people, etc.
Posted by Bull at 3/20/2008 11:49:00 PM
Labels: economy, energy policy, OPEC
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
*wondering what word you had to change*
;-)
Wow. I had no idea they had that much power. That is an amazing amount of wealth.
I'm going to go buy a bicycle, although it might be hard to ride in my burka :-P
They all (sort of) have (sort of) plans. Obama's plan includes reducing reliance on foreign oil (34% by 2030), but doesn't have that sort of "crisis" theme the article has. According to that article, we'll be owned by OPEC well before then.
It's hard to compare to Clinton's plan, which promises to "cut foreign oil imports by two-thirds from 2030 projected levels," since I don't know how that projection compares to what we use now. Her plan is a lot more vague.
Okay, I'm totally being a jerk here, but you have to look at the front page of John McCain' site. I guess McCain's still not comfortable with that new-fangled color photography technology. Doesn't he look like he's about to fall over into his oatmeal?
Okay, energy. Guess who has the least detail on his site? Here's what McCain's page says, and by the way he doesn't even mention energy in his category, just "environment." He says: "He has offered common sense approaches to limit carbon emissions by harnessing market forces that will bring advanced technologies, such as nuclear energy, to the market faster, reduce our dependence on foreign supplies of energy."
Now there's a little video of John talking that I could watch, but he starts out saying the Reagan was an environmentalist, and I'm not sure what that has to do with him, but I've heard enough.
Sorry, I know that isn't the hard-hitting reporting it could have been. There is probably somebody somewhere who knows what they're talking about who has analyzed this. I hope!
A discussion of the issues?
Why would America want that?
Yeah, it was late when I posted and my homework for the weekend is to review energy policies.
My gut is that I won't be satisifed. Goals are fine, but a solid plan - particularly to reach these lofty ones - is not something you can shit in a week.
I'm sure these countries are more than happy to let us wear buttfloss (they'd probably buy it for us) as long as we're nursing long and hard off the OPEC teat.
But my wife has a beautiful embroidered abbayah she bought while we lived in Bahrain, just in case :-p
Good question, James...
I think it's because (cue Colonel Nathan R. Jessup) deep down, in places we don't like to talk about at parties (end cue) most American's really, really, REALLY don't want to touch this one. It means too much sacrifice across the board and at all levels.
The investment bankers, environmentalists, oil companies, transportation industry, military, housing industry, Congress, and especially the populace - will all have to give something up.
Aww shit, we're skroooood...did anyone say anything racist, I feel the need to complain.
BTW - thanks for posting this.
On the issue of "does America want a discussion of the issues" -- this is why there's supposed to be a difference between news reporting and entertainment.
What shows up as entertainment ought to represent the most popular leisure interests of the American people. Since it's a market, you'd expect it to gravitate somewhat toward least-common-denominator stuff. That's natural.
But what about news reporting and analysis? There's a responsibility there, not to the market but to cover complex issues and help the individual citizen to understand them. This is why public broadcasting should always have a role. And that role is to be apart from any market and to deliver complex issues in a digestible form. Citizens can only make a more intelligent choice when they are better informed.
It's no wonder that dismantling public media has been on the agenda of Republicans on and off for so long. They prefer commercial media with its tendency to devolve itself into infotainment and sensationalism.
Have they had some success? Look around and decide for yourself. How many people will take advantage of a well-produced breakdown of energy policy, and its effect on the future in the context of the upcoming elections? How many people would even know about such a program if it got produced on PBS? A great strategy for marginalizing public broadcasting, apart from simply de-funding it, is to underfund it and then fail to support any of its productions by failing to promote PBS.
Post a Comment