Posted on 07/26/2015 5:08:29 PM PDT by GoneSalt
AMES, Iowa – Hillary Rodham Clinton promised to aggressively fight climate change as president, embracing an issue on Sunday that sharply contrasts her with Republicans, and one that her leading Democratic rival, Bernie Sanders, has championed before cheering crowds.
Mrs. Clinton offered few specifics at an afternoon rally, but she said she would post a video with policies that set “really high goals” on her campaign website at 7 p.m.
She praised Iowa for generating 40 percent of its energy from wind and said the nation needed to build “a clean energy economy” with the help of tax incentives.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
And bamboozling the millions of young voters who still haven’t figure out how they were hornswoggled by “hope and change”
>>Iowa gets 40% of her energy from wind where the national average is less than 2%?<<
The caucuses.
Texas leads the nation in wind energy...virtually all of which would shut down if the generous subsidies from the federal government go away. With the crash In oil prices, there is no reason to prop up alternative energy boondoggles, and that includes ethanol.
Sadly, ethanol is like food stamps.
Backed by a robust coalition of farm state and liberal politicians.
This, right now, is the high mark of human numbers and human civilization.
Is her message going to be classified? I don’t trust her, Hillary lies !
Perhaps it is time to see which Dormbama directive will start CW-II.
Hillary: With your help and with tax incentives we can shutdown the power plants, cap off the wells and close the gas stations.
Well lets just spike energy costs a couple hundred percent, require carbon taxes, and take a much bigger chunk of the family budget to prevent the sky from falling on chicken little.
That is what the democrats want, lets just put it out there and let the people decide what they are willing to pay for.
Don’t the California folks LOVE that $5 gas due to state CapNTax?
promises ‘rEally high goals’..
Id be shocked if she didnt.
You can put up all the wind generators that you want and say “potentially they will generate 40% of our energy needs.” The fact is that wind is fickle and doesn’t always do what you think it will. The first 20% is easy because they have already used the known sweet spots. The next 20% will be a very expensive experiment in trying to locate areas that have an adequate prevailing wind in order to get a payback on the generator. Putting up generators doesn’t mean you will get sufficient output of electricity to justify the cost.
Of course Hillary doesn’t know this. After all what difference does it make, it sounds good.
Things are going to heat up for her someday.
I take a diurnal, it's combined with my blood pressure medication.
(The devil made me type that.)
One of the biggest manufacture of wind turbines is in Iowa.
You see them trucking them all along i80 from Iowa to Wyoming
Did Cankles think of looking in the mirror?
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.