Energy
Politics and policy are complicated (or real hard as GWB would say). They are intertwined with, and impact programs that are seemingly unrelated. For instance, Energy Policy impacts and is impacted by the War on Terrorism, Environmental Issues, and Agriculture, as well as other policy issues such as illegal aliens.
Why is it that politicians can't look at a set of facts, add the facts together to make a "real" decision (i.e., a decision that accomplishes something meaningful)? Might it be because when they define the facts very narrowly they can appeal to a specific constituency (such as envionmentalist) even though if you took the opportunity to add all of their individual statements together they just wouldn't make sense. Your elected representative might say, for example, "I support the war on terrorism," but when it comes to voting on energy policy they don't vote on provisions that would make the U.S. less dependent on foreign oil because they want to protect the environment even though by not voting to make us less dependent on foreign oil we send millions of dollars overseas to fund the terrorist who want to kill us.
QUESTION TO ASK YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE - Is it more important to protect the environment (which may not be threatened at all anyway), or to protect us against terrorist who want to kill us (and did on 9/11)? I don't think you will get a straight answer.
The President acknowledged in the 2006 State or the Union speech that we get a large percentage of our oil from unfriendly nations. That means we send a lot of money to countries overseas that want to hurt us, and then those countries use the money we send them to fund terrorist so they can hurt us.
Our politicians delay solutions that can be easily implemented, and choose to spend our money doing more research. The President also said in the State of the Union speech that we had spent billions of dollars on researching alternative energy to make us energy independent. He said that there had been some exciting research done already, and that we were on the verge of making some dramatic breakthroughs. That's the same line we heard in the 1970's; so just name one of the breakthroughs that is currently saving us from dependency on foreign oil. THERE ISN'T ONE!
There ARE things that can be done now. We DON'T need to fund further research on some of these alternatives. Real people are actually using these alternatives. The technology is here (it's a start). There are companies producing these alternative fuels. There are individuals producing these alternative fuels. There are people using these alternative fuels. Two alternative fuels that can be used nationwide now to significantly reduce dependency on foreign oil are ethanol and biodiesel. Both come from agricultural products that we grow in the U.S., but we currently export a large percentage of these crops in order to create markets for U.S. farmers. We can create markets here for our farmers, and reduce dependency on foreign oil. I have personally made one of these alternative fuels that has been used for over 9,000 highway miles in an unmodified vehicle. This fuel cost about $0.65/gallon to produce (not including labor). This type of fuel is commercially available through limited retail outlets.
Laws can be implemented now that will encourage the production and distribution of these fuels. The Governor of New York has proposed some real solutions for his state that can be implemented now. Governor Pataki has identified immediate solutions such as lower taxes for alternative fuels, and rules to prohibit oil companies from obstructing distribution of these fuels. What is your state or federal elected representative doing to implement solutions now?
Why is it that Congress (Democrats and Republicans), and the President are so reluctant to implement practical energy alternatives, while the U.S. is under attack? Why is it that they are so willing to delay implementing alternatives, but willing to spend our tax dollars on more unnecessary research? Why is it that they are not encouraging legislation to improve markets for our farmers? I have a bunch more questions, but you can probably think of some yourself. Why don't you start asking those questions where it counts?
Why is it that politicians can't look at a set of facts, add the facts together to make a "real" decision (i.e., a decision that accomplishes something meaningful)? Might it be because when they define the facts very narrowly they can appeal to a specific constituency (such as envionmentalist) even though if you took the opportunity to add all of their individual statements together they just wouldn't make sense. Your elected representative might say, for example, "I support the war on terrorism," but when it comes to voting on energy policy they don't vote on provisions that would make the U.S. less dependent on foreign oil because they want to protect the environment even though by not voting to make us less dependent on foreign oil we send millions of dollars overseas to fund the terrorist who want to kill us.
QUESTION TO ASK YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE - Is it more important to protect the environment (which may not be threatened at all anyway), or to protect us against terrorist who want to kill us (and did on 9/11)? I don't think you will get a straight answer.
The President acknowledged in the 2006 State or the Union speech that we get a large percentage of our oil from unfriendly nations. That means we send a lot of money to countries overseas that want to hurt us, and then those countries use the money we send them to fund terrorist so they can hurt us.
Our politicians delay solutions that can be easily implemented, and choose to spend our money doing more research. The President also said in the State of the Union speech that we had spent billions of dollars on researching alternative energy to make us energy independent. He said that there had been some exciting research done already, and that we were on the verge of making some dramatic breakthroughs. That's the same line we heard in the 1970's; so just name one of the breakthroughs that is currently saving us from dependency on foreign oil. THERE ISN'T ONE!
There ARE things that can be done now. We DON'T need to fund further research on some of these alternatives. Real people are actually using these alternatives. The technology is here (it's a start). There are companies producing these alternative fuels. There are individuals producing these alternative fuels. There are people using these alternative fuels. Two alternative fuels that can be used nationwide now to significantly reduce dependency on foreign oil are ethanol and biodiesel. Both come from agricultural products that we grow in the U.S., but we currently export a large percentage of these crops in order to create markets for U.S. farmers. We can create markets here for our farmers, and reduce dependency on foreign oil. I have personally made one of these alternative fuels that has been used for over 9,000 highway miles in an unmodified vehicle. This fuel cost about $0.65/gallon to produce (not including labor). This type of fuel is commercially available through limited retail outlets.
Laws can be implemented now that will encourage the production and distribution of these fuels. The Governor of New York has proposed some real solutions for his state that can be implemented now. Governor Pataki has identified immediate solutions such as lower taxes for alternative fuels, and rules to prohibit oil companies from obstructing distribution of these fuels. What is your state or federal elected representative doing to implement solutions now?
Why is it that Congress (Democrats and Republicans), and the President are so reluctant to implement practical energy alternatives, while the U.S. is under attack? Why is it that they are so willing to delay implementing alternatives, but willing to spend our tax dollars on more unnecessary research? Why is it that they are not encouraging legislation to improve markets for our farmers? I have a bunch more questions, but you can probably think of some yourself. Why don't you start asking those questions where it counts?
posted by Ken | 6:36 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home