Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Funny we havent seen any liberals supporting Obama on this one. Maybe they are to busy fighting for Obama on other issues in other posts.
You know
Flip/Flop on Iraq
Free HealthCare
You know all those socialist ideas.
I would think that the consequences of his energy plan would be issues of concern to his supporters, starvation in destitute areas, food price problems and global warming.
At the very minimum, I would expect Obama's supporters to explain why the baseline analysis in this thread is incorrect.
I would think that the consequences of his energy plan would be issues of concern to his supporters, starvation in destitute areas, food price problems and global warming.
At the very minimum, I would expect Obama's supporters to explain why the baseline analysis in this thread is incorrect.
Do you like all these crickets I'm with paperhouse as I agree it is not a smart move. Ill even go as far to say it is and idiotic move but I'm no messiah!
Do you like all these crickets I'm with paperhouse as I agree it is not a smart move. Ill even go as far to say it is and idiotic move but I'm no messiah!
Honestly, I'm a bit surprised.
I agree the thread is one that folks might want to check out and validate for the legitimacy of the sources, I was careful in selecting these but I discarded quite a few I felt were suspect. Perhaps they are evaluating the linkages, and validating them for themselves. I could understand this taking a bit of time.
Hopefully they are researching the issue and developing a reasonable and comprehensive response or rebuttal. I'm open for a discussion on the accuracy of the stated impacts.
so the alternative is so just continue to rely on oil and not explore any other alternative sources?
Ethanol isnt a sound idea, I fully agree with that...but the push was bipartisan so we can all stop pretending like its been some vast liberal conspiracy to undermine the economy.
As far as food prices go, I thought the official argument was that the cost has been driven up by globalization and a growing middle class in India and China. I know GW pointed the finger in Indias direction, to which India retorted "eat less, fatties"
We dug our own hole on the situation we're in, and regardless of what any politican says, there will be no simple solution.
So, my question is this, is Obama supporting a policy and subsidy that substantially contributes towards the problems of hunger, food price inflation and global warming? Are the arguments against Obama's ethanol policies incorrect?
The NY Times recently ran another article about Obama's support for ethanol. (My apologies if this has already been posted elsewhere.)
Mr. Obama is running as a reformer who is seeking to reduce the influence of special interests. But like any other politician, he has powerful constituencies that help shape his views. And when it comes to domestic ethanol, almost all of which is made from corn, he also has advisers and prominent supporters with close ties to the industry at a time when energy policy is a point of sharp contrast between the parties and their presidential candidates.
For the record, I oppose offshore drilling and support R&D for alternative fuels, but I don't believe ethanol is the answer. And I'm a bit disturbed by Obama's ties to ethanol because it reminds me too much of Bush's oil ties.
For the record, I oppose offshore drilling and support R&D for alternative fuels, but I don't believe ethanol is the answer. And I'm a bit disturbed by Obama's ties to ethanol because it reminds me too much of Bush's oil ties.
Having lived in both Texas and Louisiana where offshore drilling is a pretty accepted way of life, I am always interested when people oppose offshore drilling out of hand. These are usually the same people who also oppose clean coal and nuclear. You support R&D for alternative fuels but what will you say if this alternative fuel does not turn out to be as pristine as you wish it to be. Or what if it turns out to have negative aspects as corn ethanol does? In my view because of 30 years of nonaction by both Dems and Reps, we have reached a near crisis situation and cannot afford to turn down any alternative that is available and in my book that includes offshore drilling, clean coal, oil shale, and nuclear.
It is interesting to see the discussions evolve around the legitimate issues such as offshore drilling for oil. Not to hijack my own thread, but an interesting aside is that one of the alternatives renewable resource folks (like me) support is wind turbine energy. A very promising development is offshore wind farm electric generation. However, this has been significantly hampered by Ted Kennedy, who blocked construction of an offshore wind farm in New England:
In a remarkable turnaround, liberals are now heaping scorn on the 73-year-old senator. Young audiences boo at his name, and the leftish "Daily Show" on Comedy Central makes fun of him.
The source of unhappiness is Kennedy's efforts to kill an offshore wind farm on Nantucket Sound. Cape Wind was to be the first such project in the United States and a source of pride to environmentally minded New Englanders. Polls show 84 percent of Massachusetts residents in favor.
However, I still find it odd that Obama supporters haven't discussed why his strong support for corn based ethanol doesn't aggravate the issues I spelled out in the original posting concerning (1) hunger for the poor nations, (2) food price inflation and (3) global warming.
As far as food prices go, I thought the official argument was that the cost has been driven up by globalization and a growing middle class in India and China. I know GW pointed the finger in Indias direction, to which India retorted "eat less, fatties"
We dug our own hole on the situation we're in, and regardless of what any politican says, there will be no simple solution.
A big part of the problem is also related to the fact that less corn means less food to feed to the cattle and other farm animals....and on top of that they are feeding them stuff that doesnt even promote a healthy animal, so you will see more weak, diseased, and infected animals...sounds like something yummy you want in your burgers, right?
Also, with less available food for the cattle, farmers are already slaughtering their stock much earlier than they normally would, because they cant afford to feed them.
In the very short term, this probably means a drop in the price of beef because of the unexpected flooding of the market due to early slaughter, in the long term, there will justbe less cattle, and more expensive meat.
This is a classic example of unintended consequences arising when trying to force an economic policy that involves subsidies instead of letting the market work by itself.
This is not a McCain/Obama thing like others have said, both parties are guilty...however I will go on record as saying that a certai Republican congressman from Texas who is also a doctor opposes such things for exactly these reasons.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
