|
"Changing Course" The National Geographic Society |
Posted on 05/14/2004 7:00:34 AM PDT by Hillary's Lovely Legs
|
"Changing Course" The National Geographic Society |
|
|||
 |
|||
|
|
|||
|
©2004 Harry Braun for President
|
As a technical analyst and author of The Phoenix Project: Shifting from Oil to Hydrogen, I am seeking your support for my independent campaign for president because I am the only candidate who has proposed a multi-trillion dollar integrated energy, economic and environmental plan that will supercharge the economy by making America 100% energy independent of all fossil and nuclear fuels by 2010. This "transition of substance" will be accomplished by employing millions of Americans to mass-produce wind-powered hydrogen production systems, including sea-based "Windship" systems, whose deployment will also provide a vast sanctuary for the remaining ocean ecosystems that are in the final stages of being driven into extinction from oil and chemical spills and destructive fishing practices.
A ccording to a number of recent scientific studies published in the Journal Nature (May 15, 2003), o ver 90% of the large commercial fish in the global oceans are now gone, and the remaining 10% are so contaminated with mercury, a neurotoxin emitted from coal plants, they are unfit to eat. According to recent data from EPA (The New York Times , Feb. 5, 2004) roughly 630,000 babies (I in 6) are now at risk each year for developmental disorders from the mercury contamination found in the mother's womb. If that were not bad enough, recent studies have shown that the farm-raised fish that most consumers now eat also cause cancer.
Moreover, it's not just the large fish that are being contaminated and hunted into extinction. Unregulated "free market" ocean trawlers use weighted nets that operate like football field-sized underwater bulldozers, which are devastating the very ocean habitats on the seabed floor that are needed to replenish the fish populations. Given this scale and rate of mass-destruction, without extraordinary efforts, the remaining ocean ecosystems will be exterminated well before 2010. As such, as President, I will have the U.S. Navy and Air Force assigned to assume the responsibility of protecting the remaining ocean ecosystems and managing the development and deployment of the Windships like the Liberty Ships of World War II. Bush & Kerry
My staff and I have made repeated attempts to meet with President Bush, Senator Kerry and many other Democratic and Republican Members of Congress over the past several years, without success. Unfortunately, while Kerry claims to be a friend of the environment, his energy policy outlined on his website is essentially the same as the Bush energy policy, which is to support token efforts in renewable energy while increasing America 's addiction to the environmentally destructive oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear energy sources. Neither Bush or Kerry explain how they are going to create new private sector jobs, and they never discuss the imminent death of the global ocean ecosystems, much less what to do about the problem. They never talk about the fact that every day mountains and their surrounding ecosystems are being devastated to get a relatively small amount of coal, which then contaminates our own children with mercury. They never mention that the nuclear wastes are leaking and have been out of control for years, and that every existing nuclear plant is corroding, which means they are like ticking time bombs waiting to go off. Such an nuclear accident will make the 9/11 disaster look minor by comparison, because some of the really nasty isotopes, such as Iodine 129, will be lethal for 160 million years , which is why business or politics as usual is no longer acceptable. It's 11:59 for Spaceship Earth
The sense of urgency is due to the exponential nature of the energy and environmental problems. It is 11:59 for Spaceship Earth, and if one does not understand what that means, one can not possibly understand the serious nature of the global environmental problems. It is why we are like passengers aboard the Titanic and there is only a limited amount of time left to change course. We need to focus on solar-sourced hydrogen because it is the only energy option that can permanently replace all fossil and nuclear fuels worldwide forever; it is the only "universal fuel" that can power every existing automotive engine, vehicle, appliance or power plant; it is completely non-toxic; it is safer than gasoline; and if it is made from water with solar energy, it is both pollution-free and inexhaustible. Indeed, every green plant on the earth is a solar hydrogen machine. Hydrogen pipelines will also be able to transmit electricity, thereby avoiding the need for building a vast new array of unsightly overhead high-voltage transmission lines across America 's majestic vistas.
While Bush and Kerry promote fuel cells, as a practical matter, their widespread use is decades away and will require the complete replacement of the existing fleet of 225 million vehicles in the U.S. A much more immediate and cost-effective Phoenix Project approach is to mass-produce wind powered hydrogen systems and simply modify all of the existing engines and vehicles, including aircraft, to use hydrogen fuel. And because hydrogen can be made from water with electricity, consumers will be able to refuel their vehicles at home as well as the local "hydrogen" gas station. Thus filling up with hydrogen will be easier, and much safer, than using gasoline or other toxic hydrocarbon fuels where the hydrogen is chemically bonded to the carbon from fossil fuels. Fair Accounting Act
The "trigger mechanism" for this transition of substance is to hold Congressional Hearings in order to pass Fair Accounting Act legislation, which will end subsidies to fossil and nuclear fuels, thereby making solar hydrogen the least expensive fuel. The market incentives will then exist for energy companies to shift their investments to the mass-production of solar hydrogen technologies, which will result in "sustainable prosperity without pollution."
Given that George Bush is both fiscally and environmentally incompetent; and given that he lied in order to authorize the mass-murder and serious injury of thousands of innocent Iraqis and American solders, which reduced the cradle of civilization to rubble in order to control Iraqi oil, I have no intention of doing anything that might contribute to his reelection. On the other hand, the only way to get Senator Kerry to change his policies is if my campaign can generate enough public support to make the difference in the outcome of the election. Given how close the election may be, even 1% could make a difference . It is an extraordinary opportunity for a tiny minority to initiate a transition of substance. In the final analysis, however, if I am not ahead of Senator Kerry in the national polls prior to the general election, I will drop out of the race and endorse Senator Kerry.
Please refer to the Phoenix Project Platform document that lists the other campaign issues alphabetically. Alone we are helpless, but together we can turn the wheel and change course. It is important to realize that because of the exponential age in which we live, we are as close to a nanotechnology utopia as we are to an ecological oblivion. But given the exponential forces involved, there is only a limited amount of time to change course, which means the decisions we make in the near future will determine which future evolves.
I hope he isn't planning on any of those windmills near where liberals like Kerry, Kennedy and Kronkite live. Or where birds are. Where are all those windmills going to go?
yeah. like I can see all them beachfront property owners like fat ted and Olivia newton-john gong ballistic at the concept of having to look at these things in the ocean for the sake of energy sufficiency. Sure. they're gonna have the view spoiled for the sake of little people. right.
can't put oil rigs in sight of land already in half the places.
At least this guy has a plan. Since our first energy and oil crisis back in 1973 (31 years ago) the Republican and Democrats only plan has been to import more oil, spend billions of dollars (and American lives) protecting oil producing countrys that have no appreciation for our investment, and see the price of gasoline go from 35 cents to $1.90 a gallon (550 percent increase).
Our dependance on foreign oil has made us strange bedfellows with people who hate us, want to kill us, and want to destroy every trace of our existance. Stupid environmental policy over 35 years has destroyed incentives to research and develop on shore oil production.
Republicans and Democrats have both failed miserably with energy policy. They have allowed us to be dropped into the pit with the vipers to fend for ourselves.
My opinion (for whatever it's worth) is give this guy a chance. At least he has an energy plan that don't involve our military.
If you think it is a good idea, invest your money. Don't use the power of government to confiscate my wealth to fund this quackery. Capitalism works and is compatible with individual rights. Socialism does not work, and is incompatible with individual rights.
You call this quackery? Perhaps I consider the public funding military subsidy on oil imports confiscatory. I consider a 550 percent increase in the price of gasoline confiscatory. Let the oil companys pay for the military protection of their unstable investments! Why should my taxes subsidize oil company profit??? My point is, our country is doomed without radical rethinking of energy policy. The billions of dollars we have spent protecting the ungrateful saudi's could have gone a long way to making this technological energy plan a reality. Or could the plan be blocked by oil company lobbyists to protect their profits?
I do agree that socialsim is contrary to individual rights. We are on the same side there. But our energy policy is doomed if we continue to depend on the instability of the Middle East. And we will be sucked into countless more wars and conflicts because we have no choice.
Yes.
Perhaps I consider the public funding military subsidy on oil imports confiscatory.
Perhaps you do and perhaps you don't. Its hard to argue with jello. But if you think the military budget is being given to oil companies, I'd like to see your evidence.
. I consider a 550 percent increase in the price of gasoline confiscatory.
Regardless of what you consider, oil and gas prices, in real terms, are still at historical lows. And it is not confiscatory. Its a free market. If you don't want to buy it, don't. Try not paying taxes to fund your greeny pipe dreams and you go to jail. THAT is confiscatory.
Let the oil companys pay for the military protection of their unstable investments!
Do I need to remind you that we are fighting because terrorists attacked us?
Why should my taxes subsidize oil company profit???
The question is why should your taxes pay for our national security. And that is one of very very few legitimate purposes of government.
My point is, our country is doomed without radical rethinking of energy policy.
So, your theory is that unless we instute some form of centralized command ecnoomy a la Soviet Union we are doomed? How about we are doomed if we DO centralize economic control. I could dissect the rest of your post, but I think I've adequately exposed your perspective as nonsense.
If you believe the technology is economically feasible, invest your money and make millions. If its not, don't force me at the point of the tax collectors gun to fund it.
you said "If its not, don't force me at the point of the tax collectors gun to fund it. "
Thats exactly the way I feel by having our military protect unstable oil supplies when we don't have to be dependant on foreign oil.
The war on terror wouldn't be so important if we didnt have to legitimize those nations that support terrorism because we are hooked on their oil. And national defense should include having a strong, steady supply of energy within our borders. Anything outside of our borders is vulnerable to forces beyond our control.
You can dissect my post if you want. But you have offered no energy plan? How can more of the same be good for our nation? I see your hollow dependance on foreign oil as suicidal to our Democracy. It places our leaders in positions of compromise so as to not offend some wealthy arab oil minister who might cut of our supply. How can we control our nations destiny when we are manipulated by foreigners? How can you solve the crisis without involving the military? Answer those questions...........
If you have a better idea that don't involve paying with the lives of our soldiers for energy that can be provided within our borders lets hear it.
You are ignoring the key difference between the military and the economy. The military is a proper function of government. You can argue whether or not this particular action is appropriate, but the military should be funded by taxes, and enviro-nut schemes should not.
Secondarily, the current action has very little to do with oil. It isn't like gas prices started to rise and our President said, hey lets go conquer some A-rabs. This is a war against militant Islam, you know, those guys who ATTACKED us...killed our countrymen. Have you forgotten? It wasn't oil company executives who crashed planes into the twin towers. One of the few legitimate purposes of government is to protect us...and that is what it is doing.
Furthermore, if you think this is a war for oil, sit back and relax, you think the oil will start rolling in. You know, once the evil imperialists start stealing the wealth of the Iraqi people and brutally exploiting them...we'll be home free.
"But you have offered no energy plan?"
Here you go...remove the enviro-nut obstacles to the free market. Say, allow someone, anyone, to build a refinery every 20 years or so. Allow people to drill for oil. (ANWR, offshore FL and CA) Stop all the wacky different state standards for gasoline. And the best part of my energy plan...its free.
BTW, where is your underwear plan? We are nearly entirely dependent on foreign sources for our underwear. What are you going to do about it? Where is your underwear plan?
Read carefully before you reply.
We agree on more things than you seem to realize. My premise has nothing to do with funding the military. I agree it is necessary. However the point you are missing is that our military should not be used as a tool to protect the oil business when it is based in unstable regions of the world. Our oil industry is deriving profits from this protectionism. I think our oil industry would be better served by military protectionism if it was included under blanket protection within our borders. I agree with you about the interference of the enviro-nuts in energy commerce. They have caused more damage to our economy than they have created good. How can a proposal such as the Phoenix Project be considered wacko-environmental when it does precisely what the wackos seem to be against, the exploitation of our natural energy resources for an energy independant Amerrica??
I believe that if GWB had proposed this plan instead of Braun, you would be more apt to support the Phoenix Project. Since our economy is energy based already, I see nothing that would change except we could tell the Saudi's to screw themselves, we don't need their oil.
One of the huge problems here in America is that too many things are being produced outside of our borders. We would be much better served, and certainly more secure against terrorists, if we realized that America's security is only in America's best interest. And the rest of the world couldn't care less if America remains strong or gives it all away to appease the have nots.
Foreign manipulation of America's sovergnity can only be achieved if we relinquish our energy production and manufacturing capacity to countrys that openly renounce our Capitalist based economy, and the freedoms we enjoy because of our success. Foreign oil production, and foreign produced underwear are the fringes of the spectrum. When everything else falls in the middle, we have lost control of our destiny my friend.
It is unfortunate that a lesser candidate like Braun has proposed self sufficient energy production. Since the mainstream political buereauocracy has had plenty of chances to fix the problem over the past 35 years, they appear to be unwilling. My preference if I were to sacrifice would be to pay more to see onshore energy production, than see my sons, your sons, and other peoples sons put in harms way to defend a failed American energy policy.
We are vulnerable to terrorism only because we are seen as occupiers and exploiters. Having a presence in those unstable regions gives the terrorist's more reason and opportunity to strike us. We are making it too easy for them to have an excuse to strike.
Thank you for a spirited debate.
He'll only peel off some of Harry Browne's remnant.
However the point you are missing is that our military should not be used as a tool to protect the oil business when it is based in unstable regions of the world.
We are not in Iraq for the oil. Never have been, never will be. We are there because of the threat of militant Islamic terrorism. Granted, if they did not have any oil wealth, the Arab world would likely be so desperately poor that they couldn't afford belts for the suicide bombers. Oil makes it impossible for us to ignore them. That is the only thing oil has to do with this...it gives the enemy enough wealth to be dangerous. We are not there to take their oil. If you think we are, you might have a better audience at DU.
How can a proposal such as the Phoenix Project be considered wacko-environmental when it does precisely what the wackos seem to be against, the exploitation of our natural energy resources for an energy independant Amerrica??
The environuts don't agree with you...they are mostly for the use of 'green' power. (It is also worthwhile to note that every 'green power' option also has environmentalists opposed to it, hydro-damns have fish people, windmills have bird people etc) They use it as cover because it is impractical...it lets them say they are 'for' a different kind of energy, as opposed to the truth that they are against energy and the capitalism that it fuels.
I believe that if GWB had proposed this plan instead of Braun, you would be more apt to support the Phoenix Project.
There is much convolution there. First, I wouldn't support this if GWB were to propose this...because it would still be socialism. I would likely be more receptive to the technolgy...because he wouldn't propose it were horrendously impractical...a constraint that doesn't seem to stop fringe candidates and democrats.
Since our economy is energy based already, I see nothing that would change except we could tell the Saudi's to screw themselves, we don't need their oil.
Every economy has always been 'energy' based. Stone age people's economy is 'energy' based, its just that their energy was wood fires and human sweat. Transitioning from a hydrocarbon based economy to a hydrogen based one is a MASSIVE change...not something to be disregarded because 'we are already energy based'
Since the mainstream political buereauocracy has had plenty of chances to fix the problem over the past 35 years, they appear to be unwilling.
Never heard of laissez faire, eh?
As I said in the begining, if you think the technology is practical...go out, invest your money, make it happen and make millions. Good luck, you will deserve every penny of your millions. Don't use the ballot box to try to control the economy, be it energy, health care or anything else. Socialism does not work. More importantly, it cannot work because it is outside of the proper function of government.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
