We Americans are so shortsighted...

2TxAgs

DIS Veteran
Joined
Jun 24, 2001
Messages
1,040
In a previous message about the rise in oil prices, there is a post asking why our goverment has neglected (for the past 6 administrations) to put money into research for cheaper/alternative fuels. HELLO - we Americans wouldn't ELECT someone who was gutsy enough to tell us that big changes are needed...who is gutsy enough to ignore the oil/automotive lobby...who is gutsy enough to make a real environmental difference.

Heck, most of us can't even save 5% of our income for our OWN futures...why is it a surprise that the gov't isn't looking that far down the road for us? We won't elect leaders who effect real change.

Just food for thought.....
 
I don't know if I agree with that.Was there someone who ran that proposed this that we didn't elect?Other than a complete green ticket candidiate?I wouldn't elect someone solely on that basis, he'd have to have other points too and that's the problem with the Green party.Strictly environment and nothing else.We need more especialy in this day and age.And I am nota political junkie so if I don't have something 100% correct, please don't flame me,it's just my opinion.
 
Remember Al Gore? From a 2001 Wall Street Journal Article:

Bush Cuts Gore's Energy Projects
As Focus Swings to Coal Research
By J OHN J. F IALKA
Staff Reporter of T HE W ALL S TREET J OURNAL


WASHINGTON -- Bush budget-cutters slashed pet projects of former Vice President Al Gore, including research funds for a superefficient car of the future and projects for renewable energy and conservation.

In contrast, coal was a big winner in the administration's budget. A new Energy Department program will devote $150 million to research on cleaner methods for burning coal.

The Energy Department's share of the multiagency "Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles" program was cut by 35%, or $50 million, to about $92 million. The program aims to develop a small passenger car that can get as many as 85 miles per gallon. Noting that Americans prefer bigger cars, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said the program would be redesigned. "The target of research was really not in focus with where the industry is headed," he said.

Greg Martin, a spokesman for General Motors Corp., said the auto industry endorses the changes. "The next thing to do is to take these advanced technologies and put them in vehicles that are commercially viable," he said.

Mr. Gore, working with auto makers, created the program in the early 1990s as an alternative to tightening federal fuel-efficiency standards.

Funds for another Gore favorite, research on so-called renewable-energy sources such as solar, wind and biomass energy, were slashed more than 50% to $186 million from $376 million. "This is a big disappointment, but one that Congress is likely to fix," predicted Glenn Hamer, executive director of the Solar Energy Industries Association, a trade group here.

The budget also promises that a potential $1.2 billion from the sale of leases for drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would be devoted to renewable-energy research -- an effort to tie the drilling, which hasn't yet gained a majority of votes in Congress, to an environmental benefit. But Mr. Hamer and other solar-power industry supporters were unenthusiastic about the connection.

While coal-fired power plants are a major source of air pollution, they provide 51% of the nation's electricity. Mr. Abraham, pointing out that the U.S. has enough recoverable coal in the ground to last 250 years, hinted that more coal-research money could be forthcoming after a White House task force reviews energy options.

The Energy Department's budget notes that the coal and utility industries will contribute to the new clean-coal research, one phase of which will be aimed at how to reduce or dispose of carbon dioxide. Many environmental scientists believe that the gas, by trapping heat in the atmosphere, is contributing to global warming.
 
Didn't Al Gore also say in one of his books that $5/gallon would be a good idea?
 

i dont know if he said it in his book, or on the internet, which he invented.
 
BuckNaked said:
Didn't Al Gore also say in one of his books that $5/gallon would be a good idea?


Only quotes I can find about it were on sites like "bloggingforBush". Seems as though what they said he said was that maybe the only way that people would conserve on gas would be if gas was $5 a gallon. Maybe he's right? But I don't know what context that sentence was taken in since I could only find it on conservative sites. What he said was words, I think his actions are much more valid than his words. And the actions he took were definitely in the right direction.
 
LoraJ said:
Only quotes I can find about it were on sites like "bloggingforBush". Seems as though what they said he said was that maybe the only way that people would conserve on gas would be if gas was $5 a gallon. Maybe he's right? But I don't know what context that sentence was taken in since I could only find it on conservative sites. What he said was words, I think his actions are much more valid than his words. And the actions he took were definitely in the right direction.

Thanks - I know I heard something about it during the 2000 campaign, and $5 sticks in my mind, but I haven't read his book, so I wasn't sure.
 
BuckNaked said:
Didn't Al Gore also say in one of his books that $5/gallon would be a good idea?
So what? I pay $6 a gallon and so does nearly everyone else in Europe.
We can live with it - so can you.
And you'd better get used to it that gas in your country will reach similar price ranges sooner or later - IMHO rather sooner than later :teeth:
As long as mommies can haul their kids in Hummers to school gas is definitely too cheap.
 
Viking said:
So what? I pay $6 a gallon and so does nearly everyone else in Europe.
We can live with it - so can you.
And you'd better get used to it that gas in your country will reach similar price ranges sooner or later - IMHO rather sooner than later :teeth:
As long as mommies can haul their kids in Hummers to school gas is definitely too cheap.


Why is gas so much more expensive in Europe than in the US? Is it the taxes?
 
Viking said:
So what? I pay $6 a gallon and so does nearly everyone else in Europe.
We can live with it - so can you.

I wasn't commenting one way or the other, and the price of gas doesn't bother me. If it goes up, it goes up. I have to drive, so I'll pay.

But that doesn't mean that I'm in favor of the government imposing taxes to bring it up to that level. If the market takes it there, fine. But if I have to pay $5 or $6 per gallon, I'd much rather the money be going to the company profits than to the federal or state government.
 
One of the main reasons we are so dependent on foriegn oil is because of the tree hugging, granola crunching Democrats that won't allow for oil exploration off the coasts of Alaska and Texas. I work in the power industry and if you think alternate power sources like solar power and wind turbines are the solution then you are severly mistaken. Oil and gas prices will continue to rise until we can prove our own indepedance from the Middle East oil emrates.

It has nothing to do with the President as past Presidents (Democratic & Republican) have not solved the problem of rising oil/gas prices.

Think long and hard about what you are saying the next time you switch a light on in your house.
 
It's not the government's responsibility to provide cheap fuel for us! I don't recall seeing that, or anything remotely resembling that in the Consititution.

Why is it that, way too often, the questions are always asked "Why doesn't the government this?" or "Why hasn't the government that?"

Believe me, IF there was an alternative that was cheaper, easier, cleaner, etc, I GUARANTEE that the private sector, especially in the US, which has led the way in innovations over the past 250 years, would to provide it.

I would guess that hydrogen is the "fuel of the future" and many energy companies are spending billions in research and development. Give it a decade, and things will be notably different.
 
Give it a decade, and things will be notably different.
You're kidding,right?What exactly do you propose we do in the meantime?And don't provide a flip answer like we'll just have to keep paying it.What about those that literally will not be able to heat their homes or drive their cars?

I know for a fact that fuel assistance isn't what most people think it is.I have never had to apply for it (thank goodness) but know some who did.You only get a small amount towards your total bill.....say $300.If you're total for the year is $2000,it isn't a great help.And that is at prior years cost,not this years cost or future years cost.
 
Wish I lived in Fl said:
President Carter mandated increased fuel efficiency for cars, President Reagan revoked it.
]

As far as I know, Presidents can't mandate fuel efficiency standards, nor can they revoke such standards.
 
Steve Hurley said:
One of the main reasons we are so dependent on foriegn oil is because of the tree hugging, granola crunching Democrats that won't allow for oil exploration off the coasts of Alaska and Texas.

Environment > money saved on gas
 
I don't understand how we can compare the US price to the European gas price...in Europe, folks make enough money to live on, including the high energy prices (which are mostly taxes). Paid vacations, subsidized medical in most cases...all of which is not the norm in the US. Small businesses here rarely have paid vacation time for their emloyees, nor do they even offer group health insurance. Major corporations that do offer these perks are cutting back and downsizing, or are simply ending their retirement pension plans (like United). It used to be, you worked most of your adult life for one major company and the company took care of your retirement, and most of your medical...but those days are over, there is no company/employee loyalty anymore.

Many people that were promised retirement benefits, like Enron folks, are now relying on social security only, and can NOT afford food, housing and heat on that income.
 
2TxAgs said:
We won't elect leaders who effect real change.

I thought I would pull this out of your statement because it is the bottom line. As you pointed out it is "WE".

In order to go into a "all out" assault on our energy problems "WE" as Americans, rich, poor, young, old have to agree that it is a priority.
Once that happens then "WE" can demand change.

Why don't we start with murders, molesters and rapists?
How about the Public School System?
Health Care?

If we can't "solve" those issues, how do you expect to solve the energy issues?
 
Wish I lived in Fl said:
President Carter mandated increased fuel efficiency for cars, President Reagan revoked it.


President Carter was also responsible for the 20% interest rate on my first mortgage.
 


Disney Vacation Planning. Free. Done for You.
Our Authorized Disney Vacation Planners are here to provide personalized, expert advice, answer every question, and uncover the best discounts. Let Dreams Unlimited Travel take care of all the details, so you can sit back, relax, and enjoy a stress-free vacation.
Start Your Disney Vacation
Disney EarMarked Producer

New Posts







DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Add as a preferred source on Google

Back
Top Bottom