Dems opposition to alternative energy

[deltecs]

Kennedy-Opposed Windfarm Clears Hurdle
Tuesday, January 15, 2008 8:31 AM
By: Newsmax Staff 

An electricity-producing wind farm opposed by Sen. Ted Kennedy has cleared a significant hurdle, with a federal agency saying that the project off Cape Cod would not have a lasting impact on wildlife, navigation or tourism.

 Congress gave the U.S. Minerals Management Service authority over the Cape Wind project, which would consist of 130 turbines in Nantucket Sound, five miles off the coast. And the agency’s impact statement released Tuesday indicates that the federal government is likely to approve construction of the project unless major new concerns arise, the Boston Globe reports.

The federal agency determined that the project’s impact on wildlife and fish would be minimal, as would the impact on tourism. The only “major” impact would be the altered ocean view from boats.

Sen. Kennedy had maneuvered to kill the project on several occasions, maintaining that the turbines would be unsightly, hurting tourism and property values.

Newsmax reported in May 2006 that Kennedy supported a proposal to build another wind farm – in somebody else’s "backyard.”

Here is another example of the Demoncrats energy policies.  Anytime and anywhere alternative energy from sources other than fossil fuels are proposed, the liberals have attempted or in actuality blocked construction.  These alternative energy sources are not built in a day and the longer we postpone construction, the more money will be spend at the pump due higher demand.  What is Hillary's master energy plan to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources?  Voted against ANWR, voted against any new nuclear generation, voted against any new coal generation, voted against wind and solar power.  Her answer is to become President and the Arab cartel and OPEC will automatically reduce the price of oil due more relaxed political policy.  Duh?  And her husband claims she is a genius?  With the lies he has told, how can anyone believe him either?

[deltecs]

Congressional problem creation

By Walter Williams

Most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place. Politicians and a large percentage of the public lose sight of the unavoidable fact that for every created benefit, there's also a created cost or, as Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman put it, "There's no free lunch." While the person who receives the benefit might not pay or even be aware of the cost, but as sure as night follows day, there is a cost borne by someone. Let's look at a couple of congressionally created problems.

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, whose provisions were strengthened during the Clinton and Bush administrations, is a federal law that mandates or intimidates lenders to offer credit throughout their entire market and discourages them from restricting their credit services to high-income markets, a practice known as redlining. The Community Reinvestment Act encouraged banks and thrifts to make so-called "no doc" and "liar" loans to customers who had no realistic ability to pay them back. A decade of monetary expansion by the Federal Reserve Bank, contributing to the housing bubble, encouraged lending institutions to take risks they otherwise would not have taken. Government actions created the subprime crisis and now government-proposed "solutions," such as foreclosure holidays, bailouts and further regulation of financial institutions, to the problems they created will create more problems.

Congress, doing the bidding of environmental extremists, created our energy supply problem. Oil and gas exploration in a tiny portion of the coastal plain of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would, according to a 2002 U.S. Geological Survey's estimate, increase our proven domestic oil reserves by approximately 50 percent. The Pacific and Atlantic Oceans and eastern Gulf of Mexico offshore areas have enormous reserves of oil and natural gas. These energy sources of oil have also been placed off limits by Congress. Because of onerous regulations, it has been 30-plus years since a new refinery has been built. Similar regulations also explain why the U.S. nuclear energy production is a fraction of what it might be.

Congress' solution to our energy supply problems is not to relax supply restrictions but to enact the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 that mandates that oil companies increase the amount of ethanol mixed with gasoline. Anyone with an ounce of brains would have realized that diverting crops from food to fuel use would raise the prices of a host of corn-related foods, such as corn-fed meat and dairy products. Wheat and soybeans prices have also risen as a result of fewer acres being planted in favor of corn. A Purdue University study found that the ethanol program has cost consumers $15 billion in higher food costs in 2007 and it will be considerably higher in 2008. Higher food prices, as a result of the biofuels industry, have not only affected the U.S. consumer, they have had international consequences as seen in the food riots that have broken out in Egypt, Haiti, Yemen, Bangladesh and other nations.

What's the congressional response? On May 1, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, convened a hearing on rising food prices saying, "The anxiety felt over higher food prices is going to be just as widespread, and will equal or surpass, the anger and frustrations so many Americans have about higher gas prices." Congress' proposed "solutions" to the energy and food mess they've created include a windfall profits tax on oil companies, a gasoline tax holiday for the summer, increases in the food stamp program and foreign food aid. These measures will not solve the problem but will create new problems.

Americans are rightfully angry about higher energy and food prices but their anger should be directed toward the true villains — the Congress and the White House.     

[wncchester]

"Congress' proposed "solutions" to the energy and food mess they've created include a windfall profits tax on oil companies..."

Don't forget to mention that congress also over-rode  Bush's veto on expanded subsidies to the super rich mega-farmers to grow fuel inefficient corn to "help" expand the fuel supply while  at the same time they condemn the oil industry for doing what it has had to do to work with massive federal limits, restrictions and taxes on each step of fuel production.

You may not know the lovely and delightfully intelligent Ms. Maxine Waters threatened oil executives with nationalizing the oil industry yesterday.  Guess we would all shout for glory if congress forced the well known "efficiencies" of government to produce our fuel! 

And let us not forget the intelligence of President and Peace Prize winner (along with Arafatty) James Carter when he gave us a Federal Department of Energy in the 70s so we wouldn't get caught sort when the Arabs balked again.  Now that they have, shouldn't we thank Jimmy the Demmy for his wise program?  Just think how much worse today's fuel shortage might be if we hadn't had those excellent, high paid govy folks making our national energy programs so much better for some thirty years now?   You know, like they also made things better in our school systems after Carter gave us a Dept. of Education to better control the schooling of our kids.

And just look at what we have for presidential candiates now.  God help us, I'd rather pick from Larry, Curly and Moe.

[deltecs]

Environmentalists Pick Up Where Communists Left Off
Charles Krauthammer
Saturday, May 31, 2008

WASHINGTON -- I'm not a global warming believer. I'm not a global warming denier. I'm a global warming agnostic who believes instinctively that it can't be very good to pump lots of CO2 into the atmosphere, but is equally convinced that those who presume to know exactly where that leads are talking through their hats.

Predictions of catastrophe depend on models. Models depend on assumptions about complex planetary systems -- from ocean currents to cloud formation -- that no one fully understands. Which is why the models are inherently flawed and forever changing. The doomsday scenarios posit a cascade of events, each with a certain probability. The multiple improbability of their simultaneous occurrence renders all such predictions entirely speculative.

Yet on the basis of this speculation, environmental activists, attended by compliant scientists and opportunistic politicians, are advocating radical economic and social regulation. "The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity," warns Czech President Vaclav Klaus, "is no longer socialism. It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism."

If you doubt the arrogance, you haven't seen that Newsweek cover story that declared the global warming debate over. Consider: If Newton's laws of motion could, after 200 years of unfailing experimental and experiential confirmation, be overthrown, it requires religious fervor to believe that global warming -- infinitely more untested, complex and speculative -- is a closed issue.

But declaring it closed has its rewards. It not only dismisses skeptics as the running dogs of reaction, i.e., of Exxon, Cheney and now Klaus. By fiat, it also hugely re-empowers the intellectual left.

For a century, an ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous knowledge class -- social planners, scientists, intellectuals, experts and their left-wing political allies -- arrogated to themselves the right to rule either in the name of the oppressed working class (communism) or, in its more benign form, by virtue of their superior expertise in achieving the highest social progress by means of state planning (socialism).

Two decades ago, however, socialism and communism died rudely, then were buried forever by the empirical demonstration of the superiority of market capitalism everywhere from Thatcher's England to Deng's China, where just the partial abolition of socialism lifted more people out of poverty more rapidly than ever in human history.

Just as the ash heap of history beckoned, the intellectual left was handed the ultimate salvation: environmentalism. Now the experts will regulate your life not in the name of the proletariat or Fabian socialism but -- even better -- in the name of Earth itself.

Environmentalists are Gaia's priests, instructing us in her proper service and casting out those who refuse to genuflect. (See Newsweek above.) And having proclaimed the ultimate commandment -- carbon chastity -- they are preparing the supporting canonical legislation that will tell you how much you can travel, what kind of light you will read by, and at what temperature you may set your bedroom thermostat.

Just Monday, a British parliamentary committee proposed that every citizen be required to carry a carbon card that must be presented, under penalty of law, when buying gasoline, taking an airplane or using electricity. The card contains your yearly carbon ration to be drawn down with every purchase, every trip, every swipe.

There's no greater social power than the power to ration. And, other than rationing food, there is no greater instrument of social control than rationing energy, the currency of just about everything one does and uses in an advanced society.

So what does the global warming agnostic propose as an alternative? First, more research -- untainted and reliable -- to determine (a) whether the carbon footprint of man is or is not lost among the massive natural forces (from sunspot activity to ocean currents) that affect climate, and (b) if the human effect is indeed significant, whether the planetary climate system has the homeostatic mechanisms (like the feedback loops in the human body, for example) with which to compensate.

Second, reduce our carbon footprint in the interim by doing the doable, rather than the economically ruinous and socially destructive. The most obvious step is a major move to nuclear power, which to the atmosphere is the cleanest of the clean.

But your would-be masters have foreseen this contingency. The Church of the Environment promulgates secondary dogmas as well. One of these is a strict nuclear taboo.

Rather convenient, is it not? Take this major coal-substituting fix off the table and we will be rationing all the more. Guess who does the rationing?


A government which robs Peter to pay Paul
can always depend on the support of Paul

A party with super delegates, opposition to all new energy facilities in favor of environmentalist opposition, no nuclear energy plants, no firearms, nationalization of oil companies, negotiation with Muslim terrorists and terrorist organizations, higher taxes, regulation of lending institutions, national health care, massive spending on regulating climate change, and proposed carbon footprint subscription chits.  Seems to me that this is communism in its most pure form.  This is the new Democratic party.  Any vote for a candidate that cannot possibly win against this scenario, is a vote in favor of Communism. 

[phalanx]

Deltecs : it isn't about voting any longer ,the primary's in this election were all rigged. It is about anyone who ever took the oath to serve and defend the Constitution of the United States.
This includes all of our Veterans ,and active Duty personnel ,all of our Law Enforcement , Lawyers ,And every one in the United States Government.
Let me let this man explain it better.

Gentlemen: Because you have received your Honorable Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States.
It only means that you have been released from that service in good standing.
It doesn't mean you have been released by Almighty GOD from your oath to uphold and defend her , or the Constitution on which she stands.
General  George S Patton

[deltecs]

I don't recall anything in the Constitution against liberal policies or a communistic economic policy.  This is or seems to be the path some American citizens wish to lead this country toward, all the while spouting Democracy and government for the people.  Whether the primaries were rigged or not is a State issue, not a federal one.  The only federal laws on voting are listed as against an individual's right to vote, not the method of selection for a particular candidate.  That is left to the States and has been decided several times at SCOTUS.  The same applies internally with regard to political party's and its rules.  I just related that the Democratic party is leaning more and more toward extreme liberal policies and communistic economics.  And that is what I believe.

[phalanx]

No doubt ,the problem with the primary's was that in major States voters could vote either party , in allowing this you basically allow your opposing party to pick who your party will have to nominate. This year Conservatives did it to the Libs also ,but in states like Texas the Dem. vote for McCain was as high as the Rep. vote. And no the Constitution doesn't mention any party ,it doesn't need to ,by its words alone any party is fine as long as it lives by the laws stated in the Document.And if the people are leaning toward the left ,they are in violation of the Law by ignoring what the Constitution says is the law. If they choose to ignore that fact they can move to another country like England ,or stage a revolution and change the Document or remove it. Which seems to be what they are doing ,only under the lies that you stated ,if we sit on our hands and let it happen then they won the war.  Every provision for us to stop this was given us by a group just coming out of a bloody war ,the only thing they didn't see was that we would become sheep afraid to do what was an everyday thing to them if you wanted to be free.
Franklin knew this ,when he walked out of the building after signing the Constitution he was asked ,,Mr Franklin what have you wrought ? He said (A republic ,lets see how long you can keep it ).

[deltecs]

No doubt ,the problem with the primary's was that in major States voters could vote either party , in allowing this you basically allow your opposing party to pick who your party will have to nominate. This year Conservatives did it to the Libs also ,but in states like Texas the Dem. vote for McCain was as high as the Rep. vote. And no the Constitution doesn't mention any party ,it doesn't need to ,by its words alone any party is fine as long as it lives by the laws stated in the Document.And if the people are leaning toward the left ,they are in violation of the Law by ignoring what the Constitution says is the law. If they choose to ignore that fact they can move to another country like England ,or stage a revolution and change the Document or remove it. Which seems to be what they are doing ,only under the lies that you stated ,if we sit on our hands and let it happen then they won the war.  Every provision for us to stop this was given us by a group just coming out of a bloody war ,the only thing they didn't see was that we would become sheep afraid to do what was an everyday thing to them if you wanted to be free.
Franklin knew this ,when he walked out of the building after signing the Constitution he was asked ,,Mr Franklin what have you wrought ? He said (A republic ,lets see how long you can keep it ).

It is the States that have open primaries that are causing some of the primary problems.  Those States with closed primaries don't have the same cross over voting that open States do.   A more legitimate result of the voters candidate choice is better with closed primaries IMHO.  This would also assist in getting 3 rd party candidates elected to all levels of government and indicate total disfavor with the 2 predominant parties.  Alaska has closed primaries.  It should be the focus of others in States that have open primaries to correct this disparity.

[phalanx]

Amen to that , insiders are saying that is why we now have McCain at a time we really needed a Reagan . It looks like we will be losing our Republic , if we haven't already ,to bad it only took a little over 200 years .
Rome still holds the record , they had theirs over 300 ,after that they became the Empire ,who knows what we will be.

[deltecs]

House Subcommittee Rejects Plan to Open U.S. Waters to More Oil Exploration
Wednesday, June 11, 2008

WASHINGTON —  A House subcommittee has rejected a Republican-led effort to open up more U.S. coastal waters to oil exploration.

Rep. John Peterson, R-Pa., spearheaded the effort. His proposal would open up U.S. waters between 50 and 200 miles off shore for drilling. The first 50 miles off shore would be left alone.

But the plan failed Wednesday on a 9-6, party-line vote in a House appropriations subcommittee, which was considering the proposal as part of an Interior Department spending package.

With record oil prices and gas prices projected to hover around the $4 mark for the rest of the summer, Republicans have ratcheted up their efforts to open up oil exploration along U.S. coastline. But the long-sought change has so far been unsuccessful.

Most offshore oil production and exploration has been banned since a federal law passed in 1981.

"We are kidding ourselves if we think we can drill our way out of these problems," House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., said during the bill mark-up session.

For his part, Peterson said: "There is no valid reason for Congress to keep the country from energy resources it needs."

According to Peterson's office, the U.S. Minerals Management Service estimates that 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas can be found along the U.S. outer continental shelf, the area affected by the ban.

Peterson is not alone in his desire to open up the shelf. An effort to unlock the resources has been underway in Congress in recent years, and several interest groups are backing the effort, too.

"Tapping America's huge reserve of deep ocean energy helps us fight terrorism and increases our domestic energy supply, which will help put downward pressure on gasoline prices," Greg Schnacke, President of Americans for American Energy, said in a news release, adding: "With Americans suffering at the gas pump and with higher energy bills, it's a no-brainer that the OCS should be developed."

But the proposal has faced staunch opposition from environmental groups from states where the shorelines are under consideration for drilling, like Florida.

Sierra Club lands program director Athan Manuel told a House committee Wednesday that drilling has been unsuccessful in driving costs down.

"The disappointing part about some of the energy policies being promoted (is) that it calls for more drilling when drilling really is the problem. And all we've got to show for pretty aggressive (domestic) drilling for the last 35 years is, again, $4 for a gallon of gas," Manuel said, adding "since the first Arab oil shock in the 1970s, the U.S. has produced almost 90 billion barrels of oil since then, so we've tried drilling our way out of the problem and it just hasn't worked."

Environment Florida spokeswoman Holly Binns told the Media General news group that offshore drilling has no immediate impact on prices.

"It would take anywhere from seven to 10 years to bring those resources to shore — to have any measurable impact on supply,” Binns said, advocating renewable energy sources.

Democrats are holding their own series of events on Capitol Hill Wednesday to focus attention on global warming and energy independence, but drilling is not on the agenda. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said Tuesday ongoing calls for more drilling "is the Johnny One-Note of the Republican Party."

Not surprisingly, the issue has spilled into the ream of presidential politics as well.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., criticized Democrats, including fellow Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., over recent comments Obama made regarding gas prices.

The comments that McConnell referred to were given during an interview with CNBC. Discussing rising gasoline prices, Obama said: "I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing.

Obama also said that "if we take some steps right now to help people make the adjustment, first of all by putting more money into their pockets, but also by encouraging the market to adapt to these new circumstances more quickly, particularly U.S. automakers, then I think ultimately, we can come out of this stronger and have a more efficient energy policy than we do right now.

McConnell, honing in on Obama's referral to "gradual" price increases, said Obama's remarks are evidence that Obama believes "rising gas prices aren't the problem. The problem, he suggested, is that they've gone up too fast. He said he would prefer a gradual adjustment."

He continued: "Whether it's shutting down domestic exploration in large areas both onshore and offshore, instituting a moratorium on oil shale development, increasing the gas tax, or refusing to pursue coal to liquids, Democrats long ago implemented a 'gradual adjustment' on gas prices that's reflected today in the $4.05 Americans are paying for a gallon of gas."

Slick Willy vetoes legislation to permit drilling in ANWR during his term as President.  That action may have contributed to our exteme fuel costs now.  Had this legislation passed, the oil would be refined now and on the market, thus reducing our dependency on foreign oil production and higher commodity trading prices.  Would you look at today.  Here we go again, with the Dems plan to revise America's energy policy by some means other than oil and fossil fuels.  This revision will still take 10 or more years to become effective and in the interim period, guess who will pay for the experiment.  By preventing drilling in known oil reserves, the American people are going to bear the high costs of energy, due the commodities market perception of gllobal demand for crude oil.  Drilling would have reduced the markets fears and lessened the price per barrel, which would ultimately result in lower costs at the pump.  By keeping market prices high, look at the taxable revenue going into government, so the Dems can justify a balanced budget, or brag that government has reduced its deficit under Dems control.  What about the additional profits and labor that would have been aquired with more drilling in ANWR and OCS.  Dems have stopped another energy solution in favor on environmental concerns, instead of the concerns of AMERICA.  Obama will not get my vote.

[phalanx]

Obama has massive SS protection now , so did another guy in the 1930s who was a good speaker , who promised change ,and people believed his lies also.
And like Obama ,this guy hung out with ,or was friends with people who advocated genocide of an entire race.
This guy had SS also , and i don't think it meant Super Sport.

[deltecs]

Another example of environmental power regarding energy supplies and its influence on the Democratic party.

FOXNEWS.COM HOME
Junk Science: Greens Thwart Gasoline Production
Thursday, June 12, 2008

By Steven Milloy

Four-plus-dollar gasoline is forcing Americans to realize that we need increased domestic oil production to meet our ever-growing demand for affordable fuel. But even if the greens lose the political battle over drilling offshore and in places like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, they nevertheless are way ahead of the game as they implement a back-up plan to make sure that not a drop of that oil ever eases our gasoline crunch.

The Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council, or NRDC, successfully pressured the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to block ConocoPhillips’ expansion of its Roxana, Ill., gasoline refinery, which processes heavy crude oil from Canada, the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday.

The project would have expanded the volume of Canadian crude processed from 60,000 barrels per day to more than 500,000 barrels a day by 2015. After the Illinois EPA had approved the expansion, the green groups petitioned the federal EPA to block it, alleging ConocoPhillips wasn’t using the best available technology for reducing emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides.

Apparently, the plant’s planned 95 percent reduction in sulfur dioxide emissions and 25 percent reduction in nitrogen oxides wasn’t green enough. NRDC’s opposition is quite ironic since ConocoPhillips and the activist group actually are teammates in the global warming game. Both belong to the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a coalition of eco-activist groups and large companies that is lobbying for global warming regulation.

Imagine what the rest of us can expect from the greens.

Meanwhile, in California, green groups are working through the state attorney general’s office to block the upgrade of the Chevron refinery in the city of Richmond. The $800 million upgrade essentially would expand the useable oil supply by permitting the refinery to process lower-quality, less-expensive crude oil.

California Attorney General, ex-Gov. and climate crusader Jerry Brown claims the upgrade will produce an additional 900,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions per year. But Chevron says the upgrade actually will reduce the emissions by 220,000 tons.

Whose figure is closer to the truth?

It’s hard to know for sure at this point, but it’s worth noting that material false statements made by Chevron are prosecutable under the federal securities laws and California state law, while Brown and the activists pretty much can say whatever they want without legal accountability.

Whatever the facts are, Brown and the city of Richmond insist that Chevron eliminate 900,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions so that the upgrade will be "carbon neutral." While the greens remain vehemently opposed to the project, it seems their plans for blocking the refinery might go awry as Brown and the local government eventually may side with Chevron rather than the greens, but only because the company has deep pockets and is open to being shaken down.

Brown and the city have proposed that Chevron ensure that half the total emissions-reduction projects be undertaken on-site at the refinery and the other half be done either in the city of Richmond itself or elsewhere in California.

Translating the latter part of this "offer that can’t be refused:" Chevron essentially must purchase 450,000 tons of "carbon credits" annually from the city of Richmond or the state. As the street value of carbon credits is about $10 per ton, Chevron is being "green-mailed" to the tune of perhaps $4.5 million per year to upgrade its refinery — amounting to perhaps a 1 percent annual "tax" on the gains in gross revenue produced by the upgrade. And the local government officials are not the least embarrassed about this extortion.

"When you’re dealing with a refinery where the project will cost close to a billion dollars and someone like Chevron with tremendous resources, that’s not a constraint, so they should do everything possible," an unidentified state official told Carbon Control News in a June 9 article.

The farcical nature of the entire transaction is underscored by that state official’s apparent lack of understanding about how greenhouse gas-induced global warming is supposed to work.

The official told Carbon Control News that the greenhouse gas emission reductions "are vital to protect low-income minority communities in the Richmond area, which already suffer disproportionate pollution impacts."

Climate alarmism, of course, is based on the notion of global emissions causing global warming, not local emissions causing local warming; moreover, the allegation that low-income minority populations are disproportionately harmed by industrial emissions — the basis of the so-called "environmental justice" concept of the 1990s — hasn’t stuck since no scientific evidence supports it.

Though green and local government shenanigans can be a source of endless amusement, let’s get back to the main point. As the 2005 hurricane season dramatized, oil production, itself, is only one factor in determining gasoline supply and prices.

Damage to Gulf Coast refineries by hurricanes Katrina and Rita reduced gasoline supplies and increased prices worldwide — a real problem given that U.S. refineries operate at or near capacity thanks to other green constraints.

We may produce all the oil we need, but if we can’t refine it, then it won’t do much for reducing gasoline supply problems. So while working to expand domestic drilling, we’ll simultaneously need to expand domestic refining capacity.

It will be quite the Pyrrhic victory to finally produce oil from ANWR and then not be able to do anything with it.

[deltecs]

Fox News Saturday, June 21, 2008

.....
In April 2002 a majority of Americans (52 percent) opposed building additional nuclear plants. Today a 53 percent majority thinks nuclear power is a safe source of energy — a view that would have seemed far-fetched just a few years ago.

Despite the support for nuclear power, there is some residual "not in my backyard" sentiment on the issue. For example, a solid majority (55 percent) does not want to live within 20 miles of a nuclear plant and 67 percent feel their neighbors would feel that way as well.

Nevertheless, when reminded that there have been no incidents at U.S. nuclear plants in over 30 years and that France gets 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power, a majority (53 percent) are made more likely to support the nuclear energy option.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,369827,00.html

Well, it seems that Obama is not inline with his constituency with regard to energy policies.  He must be inline with the agenda of the DNC though, since his energy statements do not conflict the environmentalists in control.

[ironglow]

  The Dem/Libs owe a great deal of money (and favors) to the environmentalist whackos !

[Ponydog]

Call it whatever you want....there IS no alternative energy........I have heard that "catch phrase" since Jimmy "Peanut " Carter was President......it still rings as hollow as ever......wind , solar, hydriogen......all things that are decades away from making any real change in teh way we live our lives....think of it folks.....a home computer in 1975........would have cost a half a years salary ( one that would do what they do today )...now they are a weeks pay ...check the cost on solar panels....more expensive than ever....and about the same efficiency .....hmmmmmmmm..........ethanol has been around for decadess......and oh boy,,,,it SURE seems to be helping us turn the corner doesn't it ?    HA          Hydrogen ...switchgrass..     I wont even comment.....News flash........we have a crapload of oil....and even more natural gas......so tell me this.....new cars....lighter metals....aluminum block engines....computer chips, electronic ignition ....fuel injection.......and cars get WHAT  MPG...??    Lower every year or so it seems......hmmmmmmmm................computers went way down, refrigerators...aboute same price for the last 15 years.......I bought a new firebird when I was 17...cost me 5100.00  (1977)   got about 18 to 22 mpg.......same car today .....25,000     same fuel mileage or less.....?hmmmmmmmmm          Cars dont get better mileage because no one wants them to ....so here;s how to fix this crap we are into ....tell the EPA to get screwed......drill ....and start building 35 new super refineries.....where the old steel mills have shut fown and started to rust....put THOUSANDS back to work.....and make the US awash with gasoline and diesel............surplus surplus surplus.........the prices would drop like a stone......weak dollar or no weak dollar......Yhis thing is not about shortage of oil...a weak dollar , or a greater demand in freekin China...   ..it is about shortage of refining capacity ...period...do you realize we import REFINED GASOLINE ??      Because we cant handle the demand with current refineries......that's whjy when the Weather Channel says there is a 10 percent chance, that this tropical storm E231 ( which is 876 miles away from the Carribean....1270 miles away from the US )  might affect teh Gulf........some idiot speculator can scare the crap out of wall street and off we go with a 3 dollar a barrel bump, on somehitng that maybe sorta might happen ,...maybe..........kinda.....  bull***.     That is the way it is working now folks.......so grab your wallets........it's hurricane season......Unless we pressure our elected Royalty ( State Senators and Congressmen )   and scare them....cause what scares them , is us calling Bull**** when they do nothing....and what scares them worse.......is them having to find a REAL job.......   Our Founding Fathers did not envision a group of men and women getting rich , because they are elected to serve......who they are serving , is their own interests and their own futures.......not this Great Countries...........Of the People, By the People, and FOR the PEOPLE........think those idiots in Washington ever read that ?    hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm      I think not...