Posted on 08/24/2008 3:22:31 PM PDT by DallasBiff
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s message on energy, already evolving in recent weeks, might have to evolve a little more.
On NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, the speaker twice seemed to suggest that natural gas – an energy source she favors – is not a fossil fuel.
“I believe in natural gas as a clean, cheap alternative to fossil fuels,” she said at one point. Natural gas “is cheap, abundant and clean compared to fossil fuels,” she said at another.
The speaker apparently was trying to contrast her support for expanded use of natural gas as a motor-vehicle fuel, and many Republicans’ preference for more domestic oil drilling — particularly through opening up more of the Outer Continental Shelf for exploration.
But according to naturalgas.org, an educational Web site maintained by the Natural Gas Supply Association, “natural gas is the cleanest of all the fossil fuels.”
Pelosi and her husband drew attention recently for their investment in T. Boone Pickens’s Clean Energy Fuels Corp., which markets compressed natural gas and liquefied natural gas as a fuel for motor vehicles. Some leading Democrats, including Pelosi, have been eying legislation to encourage such uses of natural gas, as soaring gasoline prices have put pressure on Congress to do something. Amid steady pressure from Republicans, both Pelosi and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama also have signaled that they’re open to expanding offshore oil drilling, as long as it’s part of a comprehensive package that includes other energy alternatives.
Pelosi’s investment in Clean Energy – between $50,000 and $100,000 – is a tiny fraction of the speaker’s assets, as she pointed out on Sunday. “That’s not the point,” she added. “I’m investing in something I believe in.”
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...
“It is my understanding that this is not improper”
I think it is an ethics issue. It looks bad.
The fact that the investment is a small percentage of her assets is irrelevant.
I believe it's based on the fact that the combustion of CH4 produces somewhat less CO2 per evolved BTU than the combustion of other hydrocarbons. ( 117,00 lbs/billion BTU versus 164,000 lbs for "oil" : NaturalGas.org )
This leads to the doctrine that it is a "cleaner alternative", and hence an "alternative fuel".
Well, I knew she was on something!
I guess the lady doesn’t understand that natural gas is often a by-product of drilling for oil.
This fact is in the news.
You know, Nancy is not very bright. At least not swift enough to run with high class crooks. Nancy is fast becoming a political liability to the Dems, and her career is almost KAPUT.
Turn out the lights Nine Per Cent Nancy, mop the floor and just go home to daddy.
I had to shake my head when I heard her say that; what a dumb person. Natural gas here in SE NM almost always occurs with oil and is called casing-head gas. It used to be flared but now is captured and processed for pipeline transport or conversion into natural gas liquids. Power plants in the area operate completely on natural gas.
Just out of curiosity, how did the interviewer react to that answer? Anyone?
Yes I agree that combustion generates somewhat less CO2. Natural gas is in short supply however. Severe restrictions on oil extraction are also restrictions on natural gas exploration. Even in places where natural gas is extracted without oil extraction, the left tries to stop natural gas exploration.
My point is that natural gas should be used for its most efficient usages (heating) rather than promoted as an alternative to oil and coal. If natural gas was abundant, inexpensive, and easy to extract, oil and coal substitution would make sense. The left hates natural gas almost as much as oil and coal. If oil and coal are abandoned, the left will find plenty of reasons to dislike natural gas.
The whole thing of CO2 is a straw man. Just a diversion from the fact that we will be a society based on fossil fuels for some time to come. Or we will retreat to the dark ages. The latter of course the true goal of the loony left.
That makes her an EVIL speculator - no?
And this dipstick is preventing up-or-down votes on energy policy, while she bans offshore drilling & tries to "save the planet?" Guess what, Nancy - there's LOTS of natural gas offshore.
Nancy Pelosi is a f#cking moron...
Myth, pure and simple.
Ludicrous, if you think about it.
Despite our traditional understanding, the term “fossil fuel” ought not imply that the substances are derived from palnt or animal “fossils”, but only that the substances are legacies of the past.
There is a significant body of thought and good evidence that much if not most of the hydrocarbon legacy of our planet dates from planetary formation, not from plant and animal debris of later epochs. The use of the term “fossil fuel” to refer to all Earth’s hydrocarbon legacy emphasized that fact that whatever the quantity, quality, and distribution throughout the Earth’s crust, we are looking at pre-existing, non-infinite resource.
Until recently, the vast bulk of my junk e-mails were from Nigerian royals urgently requiring assistance in banking enormous sums of money. Fortunately now I can nearly always count on receiving several posts on FR from LL over the week end.
What a lucky duck!
A renowned political philosopher said it:
You get and deserve the governments that you elect.
You also deserve everything they do to you after they are in Power.
That includes Pelosi and her gang of buffoons!
This is strongly reminiscent of that crazy old man Murtha confusing Iraq with Korea ("redeploy to Okinawa"!), no?
I second your assessment.
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.