Richardson on energy

Mike, Hermosa Beach, CA — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 23:16:17 GMT

Republicans are lost on energy and the environment. True social conservatives view nature with inherent value...

http://truthalert.net/Green%20Libertarian%20Nationalism.htm#_Toc183353745

Richardson on energy

Mark, Toronto, ON — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 23:25:15 GMT

Only God can provide us with energy. Turn to Mike Huckabee for ansers. He can lead us from temtation and deliver us from evil.

Richardson on energy

Lee Holmes — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 00:45:55 GMT

Come on Mike. As we speak,the Boxer Rebellion is occurring in Bali[where,to combat global warming,Algore,assorted pundits,glitterati,and journalists[and I use this term loosely],jump on gas-guzzling,polluting jets from around the world to tool around the bucolic confines of the Indonesian isles in SUVs just smaller than the WWII STUART tank.[although in a guilt-free gesture,200 mountain bikes will be given to the first 200 attendees].
With KYOTO,Europes CO2 has been rising out of control since 2000. Without it,Americas has declined. Despite this,armed with the junk science usually retained by Creationists and hemp-wearing true believers[which are the same sort of thing in the end],Boxer[D-Ca] rebuts the Warner-Lieberman bill and prepares to rush to Bali to inform His Imperial Gorean Majesty,that she will gut Warner and force KYOTO upon the unwashed American masses,who would not know an offset from a china set. Not so fast,sez GOP Sen. Inhofe[OK] who is now moving to filibuster Boxers bill immediately after DUKE Energy,EDISON and others tell the committee that Americans,in Boxers world,had better get ready to pony up as much as 55-70% more on their home heating and electrical bills,which are high enough now.[forget windpower. On the east coast,liberal Democrats are moving to torpedo any new offshore farms and in the west,environmentalists are filing lawsuits to stop their construction].
Thus does this new religion of global warming reek of unintended [or these do not give a damn anyway,as we see with Boxer],consequences. Let the Democrats explain themselves to those enduring below-zero temperatures [as is now occurring in the Midwest along with ice storms],that they must pay more for energy in order to offset a totally non-participating China or India.

Richardson on energy

Mike, Hermosa Beach, CA — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 01:19:12 GMT

I'm not interested in defending the hypocrisy that can be found among politicians and rock stars with regard to global warming.

I'm simply recognizing that the consensus of the overwhelming majority of accredited, international scientists and research societies in relevant fields - like climatology, meteorology, atmospheric physics, atmospheric chemistry, and oceanography - is that humans are inducing a change in the climate with a certainty no less than 90%. This is a practical matter.

For those religiously or spiritually aware, we might also consider the moral obligation we have as stewards of God's creation.

The convenient weather anomalies - like heavy snowfall or cold weather in the Midwest - that seem to support the notion that "all is well" have already been addressed by the experts. There is little point in trying to summarize that here if one is emotionally invested in hating Al Gore and hippies.

I reiterate, the bulk of today's Republicans are lost on energy and the environment. It's saddening that so many so-called conservatives think ecological indifference is part of the complete political philosophy. Again, true social conservatives view nature with inherent value...

http://truthalert.net/Green%20Libertarian%20Nationalism.htm#_Toc183353745

Richardson on energy

Charlie, Fort Worth, Texas — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 05:41:25 GMT

I have never voted for a Republican in my life. But I am going to be honest; Huckabee, There is an air about him that I like. At this point his track record is important to me and his current platform.

Richardson on energy

Rick Wisconsin — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 06:41:27 GMT

Richardson is the Man for the White House. His actions speak louder than fake promises or lip service we get from other canidates.
This is a man of action and his ideals benfit every American. People should take a closer look at Richardson. His foreign policy is 2nd to none.

Richardson on energy

Rufus Gibbons, DC — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 13:04:07 GMT

Lee Holmes if I read that long winded post right we should just deny that Global Warming exists and it will go away.That is called burying your head in the sand.

Richardson on energy

doc3osh NYC — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 13:13:12 GMT

Holy smokes, Lee, take a valium.
I realize that the consensus of 97% of the world's scientists-- including the ones hired by Dubya-- is considered "Junk Science" by Rush Limbaugh, but it's really ok for you to think for yourself and realize the simple truth:
If we act now to decrease admissions, and 97% of the world's scientists somehow turn out to be wrong, then the result of that is: less smog, less emphysema, less asthma, less cancer, fish that are safe for pregnant women to eat, and thousands of good jobs created retrofitting buildings/installing solar panels/ etc etc. Businesses are learning every year that there is good money in conservation. In short, zero downside.
On the other hand, if we do NOTHING, as Dubya and Rush suggest, and the 3% minority is wrong and global warming IS real (gee, the arctic ice disappearing is not an illusion? are you SURE?), then the result is... death of about 1/3 to half of all life on earth, mass famine, millions of refugees, and war.

I'll take my chances with Gore, thanks. It's just common sense.

Richardson on energy

John Alexander,Edinboro,PA — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 13:44:50 GMT

When you look for global warming trends, you cannot look out your window and say, oh it's cold today see, you are wrong.
We must look at the trends in our weather long term.
Looking for quick changes, and finding none and trying to dissprove the science community is the same argument as "I don't see evidence of an animal in evolutinary change so there is no evidence of evolution."
Why is there an anti-science crowd in our country?
Is this group trying to save us from over zealous scientists or is there another reason this crowd is against the research?
Oil is slowly being used up, the oil industry will go the way of the conestoga wagon industry, it will disapear as new alternate energies are developed, we do not need to waste money to prop up dying industries we need to spend that money on new industries.

Richardson on energy

Union Baby, Tennessee — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:14:08 GMT

My goodness Lee, I always knew the repugnants were against any form of new energy policy, I just did not belive they would give up the opportunity to make zillions from the new technology that could reduce our dependence on oil. Thanks for the reminder from those who worship at the alter of georgie, dickie, haliburton, and big oil.

Richardson on energy

S.B. Stein E.B. NJ — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 21:05:28 GMT

What people need to note is that the solution to the energy demand is getting from a mix of sources. First we need to increase the amount we get from solar, wind and other renewables. The other aspect is that we need to be using the lastest fission power generation designs; I believe they are designing 4th generation reactors now. They should be usable soon. France somehow is able to reprocess the spent fuel to get more out of it. We need to do that as well. These options should help us start to reduce our need for fossil fuels.

All of those are a good start. What we need to be doing is funding research for fusion reactors that can be used to generate massive amounts of clean power as well as advancing the efficiency of solar cells. This is just a start to solving our problem. There are ways for businesses to make money off this, but the Republicans fail to see the possiblity.