>The only road to continuing >development is aggressive energy conservation and alternative energy >sources. The successes are gong to be measured in how fast the can develop >oil independence.
For what it's worth, I have a theory (and it is only a hazy sort of thing) as to what is deemed acceptable, and not, in the rhetoric of this President and his Vice President and team. It is that it is more or less ok for them to suggest, on occassion, under duress, that we can diversify some of our oil sources. They may not suggest that we can make a serious dent in our overall oil dependency. Hence, the over-focus on the assinine ANWR drilling debate etc. Neither energy conservation nor alternative energy are really that much on the table for President Bush or Vice President Cheney. Minor pieces of evidence: Vice President Cheney visited Avista Labs during the campaign, as a sop to the alternative energy concept, because they do fuel cells, and praised the ideas, *specifically saying* that they were good because they use hydrocarbons. Vice President left alternative energy virtually entirely out of his speech to Congress when he concluded his investigations. He mentioned Wind Energy and basically slandered it by minimizing its potential contributions. I do not recall him mentioning solar energy by name, though he may have. This is the second time I have heard President Bush mention that we need to address our foreign oil dependencies, and mention that we are dependent on folks who don't like us very much. I'm not sure, but I think both times he has not suggested getting rid of our HC addiction so much as diversifying our dealers. I believe he is on record as saying alternative energy proposals, while well-intended, are not "realistic". Vice President Cheney's infamous statement during the campaign voicing derision and disdain for certain folks, saying that folks who were into driving EVs and had solar panels on their roofs should probably not vote for them. .... Anyway, all I'm saying is, I think it's permitted of President Bush that he voice some desire to do what's right for the U.S. and diversify our sourcing of energy, but only insofar as he not aggressively suggest moving away from our present Hydrocarbon paradigm. I'm not sure what I mean by "permitted" except that he obviously has people who fund him (such as by propping him up in business and contributing to his campaign). I don't hate hydrocarbons, and don't have all the solutions to our energy issues, but I think a partial solution would involve better thinking, better energy policy planning and a better policy will clearly include a much better effort at real alternative energy. Alternative Energy generators will *not* solve all of our energy problems, but they can (obviously) will provide *some* partial answers. In the meantime, it is a pity that such a great country, with so many great hard-working too-little-time-to-waste-worrying-about-national-political-nonsense people are saddled with leaders who are not willing to take even basic steps to cease this decades-long capitulation as to energy issues. It is digusting that we have to wait two more years for President Bush to be voted out of office in order to get anything resembling a good National Energy Policy and that if he is voted into office for a second term we can pretty much forget about the U.S. having anything but a permanently damaged economy and future from such a concerted mediocre half-hearted anti-technological anti-progressive anti-rational anti-competitive anti-American National Energy Policy. Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://webconx.green-trust.org/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
