So the problem does seem to be that it isn't green enough. The far left wants near elimination of greenhouse gases... this only cuts it by 80%. There are a lot of people out there who believe a RADICAL shift in energy policy is necessary. I guess Fox News found them.

 

Possibly, although I think it may be a "green" bridge to something "greener".

 

Although I would not limit it to the far left. I am to the right and I am a huge proponent of energy independence. Many on the right are for national security reasons as well as the positive environmental impacts.

 

My beef is that we should not be subsidizing these "green" technologies. Eliminate any government subsidies for ethanol, biodiesel, etc. If these alternatives are truly a viable possibility they will be able to make it in the marketplace on their own merit (there is my free market soapbox speech for the day).

Possibly, although I think it may be a "green" bridge to something "greener".

 

Although I would not limit it to the far left. I am to the right and I am a huge proponent of energy independence. Many on the right are for national security reasons as well as the positive environmental impacts.

 

My beef is that we should not be subsidizing these "green" technologies. Eliminate any government subsidies for ethanol, biodiesel, etc. If these alternatives are truly a viable possibility they will be able to make it in the marketplace on their own merit (there is my free market soapbox speech for the day).

 

I agree. Energy independence has that two-fold environmental and security benefit -- something for both sides, a rarity in today's climate. And I can see where you're coming from on the free market concerns. My worry is that I don't know how much of a free market there really is with the massive energy lobbies in Washington that don't see it in their interests to allow green technologies to take off. But for me, I truly believe that a viable electric automobile is possible, and I'll be waiting when it's ready.

I agree. Energy independence has that two-fold environmental and security benefit -- something for both sides, a rarity in today's climate. And I can see where you're coming from on the free market concerns. My worry is that I don't know how much of a free market there really is with the massive energy lobbies in Washington that don't see it in their interests to allow green technologies to take off. But for me, I truly believe that a viable electric automobile is possible, and I'll be waiting when it's ready.

 

The market is much more free now than it was in the last 100 years. It is not like the turn of the century when automobile companies would just buy potential competitors (like the railcar and mass transit industries) and let them purposely fail.

 

I agree to an extent about the electric car. I would probably buy one, although I love driving my current turbodiesel vehicle that carries 5 comfortably and gets 40 mpg on the highway. Although we are going to have to significantly change the power grid for that to take place. It would have been nice if the nutjob enviros would not have sabotaged the nuclear industry 3 decades ago or we would have much, much, much, cleaner electricity production.

I also heard Rush Limbaugh say today that the Rain Forests are growing back faster than they are being destroyed. Talk about wacko

 

Glad to hear your listening to the 'right' talk programs and coming over to the bright side. Remember Rush is right 99.8% of the time.

 

This is an example that even when facts are presented the left will not believe it.

Why? Did you see the article in the NY Times earlier this year that referred to this?

 

Some excerpts from the article to help show how anti-environmentalist take one source and make a case while ignoring all the other sources...

 

By one estimate, for every acre of rain forest cut down each year, more than 50 acres of new forest are growing in the tropics on land that was once farmed, logged or ravaged by natural disaster.

 

How many other sources say this is bologna?

 

From the same article...

 

But other scientists, including some of Dr. Wright’s closest colleagues, disagree, saying that forceful protection of rain forests is especially important in the face of threats from industrialized farming and logging.

 

The issue has also set off a debate over the true definition of a rain forest. How do old forests compare with new ones in their environmental value? Is every rain forest sacred?

 

“Yes, there are forests growing back, but not all forests are equal,” said Bill Laurance, another senior scientist at the Smithsonian, who has worked extensively in the Amazon.

 

He scoffed as he viewed Ms. Ortega de Wing’s overgrown land: “This is a caricature of a rain forest!” he said. “There’s no canopy, there’s too much light, there are only a few species. There is a lot of change all around here whittling away at the forest, from highways to development.”

 

While new forests may absorb carbon emissions, he says, they are unlikely to save most endangered rain-forest species, which have no way to reach them.

 

I'll stick with the majority on this one.

Glad to hear your listening to the 'right' talk programs and coming over to the bright side. Remember Rush is right 99.8% of the time.

 

This is an example that even when facts are presented the left will not believe it.

 

See the above post about the "facts" as you and Rush call them. Does one source constitute fact when many others disagree? Maybe in the spin zone world that people like Rush live in. I listen and read sources on all sides and I would argue that Rush is right on about .02% of issues. I would encourage you to get more of your information from other sources too.

See the above post about the "facts" as you and Rush call them. Does one source constitute fact when many others disagree? Maybe in the spin zone world that people like Rush live in. I listen and read sources on all sides and I would argue that Rush is right on about .02% of issues. I would encourage you to get more of your information from other sources too.

 

Based on your comments then do you accept the other sides view points that global warming is not man-made? I learned a long time ago liberals do not use or recognize facts or truth.The only thing that liberals believe in is what makes them feel warm and fuzzy.

 

I read a lot, I just do not just listen to the talk shows. My opinions were formed long before Rush or any of the others showed up on the scene, they just help to re-enforce my beliefs. At times I make mistakes, fess up to them, but my core beliefs remain the same, unlike wind shifters like Bill Clinton or Barak Obama. Obama shifted quickly when moveon.org and others blew in his ear on the guys who defended this country after 9-11.

Some excerpts from the article to help show how anti-environmentalist take one source and make a case while ignoring all the other sources...

 

By one estimate, for every acre of rain forest cut down each year, more than 50 acres of new forest are growing in the tropics on land that was once farmed, logged or ravaged by natural disaster.

 

How many other sources say this is bologna?

 

From the same article...

 

But other scientists, including some of Dr. Wright’s closest colleagues, disagree, saying that forceful protection of rain forests is especially important in the face of threats from industrialized farming and logging.

 

The issue has also set off a debate over the true definition of a rain forest. How do old forests compare with new ones in their environmental value? Is every rain forest sacred?

 

“Yes, there are forests growing back, but not all forests are equal,” said Bill Laurance, another senior scientist at the Smithsonian, who has worked extensively in the Amazon.

 

He scoffed as he viewed Ms. Ortega de Wing’s overgrown land: “This is a caricature of a rain forest!” he said. “There’s no canopy, there’s too much light, there are only a few species. There is a lot of change all around here whittling away at the forest, from highways to development.”

 

While new forests may absorb carbon emissions, he says, they are unlikely to save most endangered rain-forest species, which have no way to reach them.

 

I'll stick with the majority on this one.

 

I don't doubt that, I was just pointing out that there was support for the notion of the fast growing replenishment of the rain forests. I didn't comment on a comparison of the newer forests to the old ones. I doubt that Rush did either so his comment had basis in mainstream media, did it not?

 

Whaco is such a subjective term.

See the above post about the "facts" as you and Rush call them. Does one source constitute fact when many others disagree? Maybe in the spin zone world that people like Rush live in. I listen and read sources on all sides and I would argue that Rush is right on about .02% of issues. I would encourage you to get more of your information from other sources too.

 

Another fact ignored. The forest is growing back, who said it had to grow back as it had been? What if an area had been wiped out by fire and it was growing back, just not as it had been in its state before the fire, who would you blame then? The fact is the forest is growing. "Just because you ignore facts do not mean they cease to exist."

I also heard Rush Limbaugh say today that the Rain Forests are growing back faster than they are being destroyed. Talk about wacko

 

It is a fact.