There's an envitonmental angle she should be exloiting:
We can drill. cleanly and responsibly here at home, or we can buy from "dirty drillers" abroad and have our money and jobs shipped overseas to hire those who drill irresponsibly and without regard for the environment.
That’s what I meant, you put it much better.
Thanks.
t.
There's an envitonmental angle she should be exloiting:
Yes, she makes a great point.
“There’s an envitonmental angle she should be exloiting:
We can drill. cleanly and responsibly here at home, or we can buy from “dirty drillers” abroad and have our money and jobs shipped overseas to hire those who drill irresponsibly and without regard for the environment.”
There is another line that is emerging from countries that have already started pursuing energy taxing.
It is a further transfer of wealth (remeber those pushing it, the UN).
And it is this: let developing counties or large 3rd world economies develop dirty energy, AND we will pay them to then clean that supply, because it still affects all of us, so compensate them the cost. The UN is currently transferring large amounts money to these countries to do this ... and its very unaccountable.
Its actually a FURTHER transfer of wealth - ITS NEVER ENDING.
There are a lot of things she might have added, but she is speaking with great clarity. Will the SRM avoid this editorial like the plague? If not, some alphabet viewers will get some education they understand.
There’s an envitonmental angle she should be exloiting:
A bridge too far in the 20 second sounfd bite world?