Tom Friedman’s argument as to why the energy bill should be supported ....
The energy bill now being discussed in the Senate — which would raise energy-efficiency standards, require utilities to get 15 percent or more of their power from renewable sources, like wind and solar, and create a limited cap on carbon emissions from power plants — is already watered down just to get 53 or so Democratic votes. But at least it gets us started on ending our addiction to oil and mitigating climate change. Unfortunately, right now it is not clear that a single Republican senator will even vote for this watered-down bill.
That is pathetic. Rather than think seriously about our endless dependence on oil, the G.O.P. has focused its energies on making “climate change” a four-letter word and labeling any Democrat who supports legislation that would in any way raise energy prices to diminish our dependence on oil as a “carbon taxer.”
Unfortunately, Obama and the Democrats never effectively fought back. They should have said: “O.K., you Republicans don’t believe in global warming? Fine. Forget about global warming. That’s between you and your beach house. How about this? Do you believe in population growth? Do you believe in the American dream? Because, according to the U.N., the world’s population is going to grow from roughly 6.7 billion people today to about 9.2 billion by 2050. And in today’s integrated world, more and more of those 9.2 billion will aspire to, and be able to, live like Americans — with American-size cars, homes and Big Macs. In that world, demand for fossil fuels is going to go through the roof — and all the bad things that go with it.
“If we take that threat seriously now and pass an energy bill that begins to end our oil addiction, we can shrink the piles of money we send to the worst regimes in the world, strengthen our dollar by keeping more at home, clean up our air, take away money from the people who finance the mosques and madrassas that keep many Muslim youths backward, angry and anti-American and stimulate a whole new industry — one China is already leapfrogging us on — clean-tech. Nothing would improve our economic and national security more, yet Republicans won’t lift one finger to make it happen.
Thomas Friedman doesn’t have the brains to pour pee out of a boot; he’d have trouble with that even if the instructions were written on the bottom of the heel.
But boy can he write! And write. And write. And write. And write and write and write. And write. And write. And write some more! And write. And write...
They only need to find three. Snowe, Graham, Collins and Brown can’t wait to support it, I am sure.
FUBO
Friedman is being fundamentally dishonest. He dispenses with the global warming justification for this boondoggle, and proceeds to give a lo of other supposed benefits of a green energy program, from lower prices, decreased dependence on foreign sources, and increased international competitiveness.
But all of these goals could be simply and reliably achieved by simply reducing the restrictions on domestic energy production. Our energy is artificially expensive, because we restrict so much of our natural resources.
There is no need to take a chance that higher taxes might cripple our economy in order to acheive Friedman’s supposed goals. Just open up our natural resource lands, and we’re there...
Friedman is being fundamentally dishonest. He dispenses with the global warming justification for this boondoggle, and proceeds to give a lo of other supposed benefits of a green energy program, from lower prices, decreased dependence on foreign sources, and increased international competitiveness.
But all of these goals could be simply and reliably achieved by simply reducing the restrictions on domestic energy production. Our energy is artificially expensive, because we restrict so much of our natural resources.
There is no need to take a chance that higher taxes might cripple our economy in order to acheive Friedman’s supposed goals. Just open up our natural resource lands, and we’re there...
Hey Tom!
Just which “problem” do you believe this bill is “solving”?
1-It produces less energy than is produced today.
2-That energy costs more.
3-That energy impacts the environment just as much, only in different ways (as noted by Feinstein shutting down the 500MW solar plant in the desert)
4-It is ONLY a wealth tranfer scheme that shuts down American industry and costs jobs
NOBODY that votes for this sham of bill is a “hero”!!!
15%, huh? Scam. We have a con-man in our area trying to build an incinerator (euphemistically called a “biomass plant”). He had the gall to say in an editorial suporting the scam that CO2 from burning tree waste (and garbage eventually - they almost ALL do) is different from CO2 from coal and oil.
Right. Pull the other one, scammer...
Peet (cynical bahstid)
I see Lindsey Graham jumping up and down squealing “Me! Oh, me! Oh, me, me, ME!!”
*rolls eyes* So those nasty Republicans will be all about "Drill, baby, Drill", and won't even consider all of our 'clean energy' proposals like windmills and solar power, even though it's been shown that the 'alternative' energy will NEVER be able to power the country as needed.
I, for one, would love to see more research into cellulosic gasoline, that is gas made from fibrous plants, so that we don't keep using FOOD to make fuel! If that process were perfected, we could use plants like switch grass, kudzu,and the mile-a-minute weed, all of which grow like wildfire, and would be a constant source for fuel. It may never REPLACE gasoline made from fossil-fuel, but it would be a good multiplier for it.