Do a search on "greenwashing".
It was rather strange to hear the oil man tout alternative energy so hard on the State of the Union address. Or was it all just rhetoric to make us look the other way while they increase our dependance on oil?
Do a search on "greenwashing".
On average, 52 cents of every gallon of gasoline goes to the government.
That's a spicy meatball!!!!
If music be the food of love...
In Britain it's 82%. Have I mentioned that before!!!!!Originally Posted by His Frogness
"Reduce our dependence on foreign oil" = tear up Alaska.
Conservation has nothing to do with that.
Change of heart would be nice. But I think the brain needs more attention.
"So what if some parts of life are a crap shoot? Get out there and shoot the crap." -- Neil Peart
I honestly don't see how drilling for oil in what amounts to a couple football fields of space in the middle of a tundra constitutes "tearing up Alaska". I would be willing to conceed that there can be dirty consequences to the harvesting of oil, and coal...and wind for that matter. But I don't believe in this day and age that anything is done without being as envoronmentally conscious as possible.Originally Posted by Nick Batzdorf
In fact, the heat from the oil pipelines has been shown to actually make the wildlife thrive in those colder areas where otherwise there would be nothing but snow and ice. It seems the wildlife likes herding around the heat from the pipes and this encourages them to mate more often.
It is like a situation I remember from my days back at the University of Arizona when environmentalists were protesting the U of Az building telescopes on the top of Mount Graham...claiming that these new telescopes would kill off the remaining red squirrel population that was already endangered and native to that one mountain in the southwest. The telescopes mind you were on 2 tennis court size plots of land at the very top of the mountain. And in the end...it has now been shown that building the telescopes were actually better for the squirrels in the long run. Before...the mountain was used for timber and tree farming. It was also open to the public in general. There was nothing stopping people from driving in that area if they had the vehicles to follow the trails. And of course...the timber farming was not good for the squirrels. But when the university took it all over for their telescopes...a government fence went up around the "human accessible parts" of the bottom of the mountain and now only authorized personnel (and of course wildlife) could go on the mountain. The timber farming was stopped and the squirrels thrived. Go figure.
I remember an evening around this time when there was a wild fire (started by lightening) that was burning on this very mountain. This was a bit after the telescope battle had been won by the university and construction had begun. There was a lot of worry about the fire burning up and over the new telescopes. The local NBC news anchor woman (who had been a staunch adversary in the past to building telescopes on the mountain) literally said, "And for those of you out there who are worried about Mount Graham's red squirrel population. Don't worry. Scientists say that the squirrels have the ability to run away from the fire."
I literally jumped out of my chair without missing a beat and yelled at the TV as loud (and sarcastic) as I could, "THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO RUN AWAY FROM CONSTRUCTION TOO!!!!!"
hmmm......I cannot believe, based on events and reactions in the past, that environment is an important part of the Bush/Saudi/Texan Tea Companies mantra, no matter the words dribbled onto the podium for the public's benefit.Originally Posted by Brian W. Ralston
Obviously Exxon Valdaz is but a distant memory.
I don't see what that has to do with a presidential environmental policy. A drunk ship captain is to blame for that mess. Not Bush 41.Originally Posted by Hermitage59
The Exxon Valdez tragedy lead to the "Oil Pollution Act of 1990" which strengthened regulations on oil tank vessels and oil tank owners and operators.
Accidents happen. We try to minimize them occuring, but they happen. It does not mean that those endeavors are not worth the effort. And that is what the difference in OPINION is about anyway. Is drilling for oil in the Anwar region of Alaska worth the risk? Does the benefit to the U.S. outweigh the risk of what may or may not happen? To environmentalists...no, it does not. To those in favor of drilling there...the benefit to the U.S. economy is greater than the risk. Both sides can bring forth "experts" to testify as to the benefits and the risks. In the end...it is all...a "best guess."
Right after Bush touted his belief in the need for alternative energy in his SOTU address, the funding has been cut for the exact energy sources he spoke of.
Reminds me of No Child Left Behind.
Robert Gregory Browne
KISS HER GOODBYE (now available)
KILLER YEAR: Stories to Die For (Jan. 2008)
WHISPER IN THE DARK (2008)
St. Martin's Press