Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
September 20, 2014, 07:07:18 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Obama Delivers A Real Energy Plan For America  (Read 3583 times)
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8619


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #50 on: March 11, 2011, 11:57:55 AM »

Senator Barack Obama has fulfilled the promise of his earlier climate plan with a detailed and comprehensive "New Energy for America" plan.

This is easily the best energy plan ever put forward by a nominee of either party. By comparison, the plan of John "Nothing but Nukes" McCain is a joke, with nothing on energy efficiency and a pointless $300 million battery prize and long-standing opposition to renewable energy. In contrast, Obama's plan has real depth and breath:


* Increase Fuel Economy Standards: Obama will increase fuel economy standards 4 percent per each year while protecting the financial future of domestic automakers....

* Invest in Developing Advanced Vehicles and Put 1 Million Plugin Electric Vehicles on the Road by 2015: As a U.S. senator, Barack Obama has led efforts to jumpstart federal investment in advanced vehicles, including combined plug‐in hybrid/flexible fuel vehicles, which can get over 150 miles per gallon of gas... [more details below]

* Partner with Domestic Automakers: Obama will also provide $4 billion retooling tax credits and
      loan guarantees for domestic auto plants and parts manufacturers, so that the new fuel‐efficient
      cars can be built in the U.S. by American workers rather than overseas.

* Mandate All New Vehicles are Flexible Fuel Vehicles

* Develop the Next Generation of Sustainable Biofuels and Infrastructure

* Establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard: ... The standard requires fuels suppliers in 2010 to begin to reduce the carbon of their fuel by 5 percent within 5 years and 10 percent within 10 years.


This is the only way to jumpstart an end to our addiction to oil in a climate friendly way. Indeed, an accelerated transition to plug-in hybrids and electric cars -- a core climate solution-- must be the cornerstone of any serious effort to dramatically reduce oil consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. That is the crucial litmus test for any presidential candidate's energy independence or clean transportation policy.

As for the test of a candidate's grasp of electricity policy, energy efficiency is obviously The only cheap power left and a limitless resource and THE core climate solution. Obama understands energy efficiency in a way few other major politicians do, as his plan makes clear:



* Deploy the Cheapest, Cleanest, Fastest Energy Source--Energy Efficiency: Barack Obama will set an aggressive energy efficiency goal--to reduce electricity demand 15 percent from DOE's projected levels by 2020. Implementing this program will save consumers a total of $130 billion, reduce carbon dioxide emissions by more than 5 billion tons through 2030, and create jobs. A portion of this goal would be met by setting annual demand reduction targets that utilities would need to meet.

* Set National Building Efficiency Goals: Obama will establish a goal of making all new buildings carbon neutral, or produce zero emissions, by 2030. He'll also establish a national goal of improving new building efficiency by 50 percent and existing building efficiency by 25 percent over the next decade to help us meet the 2030 goal.

* Overhaul Federal Efficiency Standards: The current Department of Energy has missed 34 deadlines for setting updated appliance efficiency standards....

* Reduce Federal Energy Consumption: ... He will make the federal government a leader in the green building market, achieving a 40 percent increase in efficiency in all new federal buildings within five years and ensuring that all new federal buildings are zero‐emissions by 2025. He will invest in cost‐effective retrofits to achieve a 25 percent increase in efficiency of existing federal buildings within 5 years.

* Invest in a Smart Grid: ... Obama will pursue a major investment in our national utility grid using smart metering, distributed storage and other advanced technologies to accommodate 21st century energy requirements: greatly improved electric grid reliability and security, a tremendous increase in renewable generation and greater customer choice and energy affordability.

* Weatherize One Million Homes Annually....

* Build More Livable and Sustainable Communities....

* Flip Incentives to Energy Utilities: An Obama administration will "flip" incentives to utility companies by: requiring states to conduct proceedings to implement incentive changes; and offering them targeted technical assistance. These measures will benefit utilities for improving energy efficiency, rather than just from supporting higher energy consumption. This "regulatory equity" starts with the decoupling of profits from increased energy usage, which will incentivize utilities to partner with consumers and the federal and state governments to reduce monthly energy bills for families and businesses. The federal government under an Obama administration will play an important and positive role in flipping the profit model for the utility sector so that shareholder profit is based on reliability and performance as opposed to total production.


Finally, a presidential nominee that really gets it (see "Energy efficiency, Part 4: How does California do it so consistently and cost-effectively?").

The proposal has lots of other details on short-term solutions and promoting the supply of domestic energy. But let me focus on his low-carbon electricity supply plan:


* Require 10 Percent of Electricity to Come from Renewable Sources by 2012 [and 25 percent by 2025]. Barack Obama will establish a 10 percent federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to require that 10 percent of electricity consumed in the U.S. is derived from clean, sustainable energy sources, like solar, wind and geothermal by 2012. Many states are already well on their way to achieving statewide goals and it's time for the federal government to provide leadership for the entire country to support these new industries. This national requirement will spur significant private sector investment in renewable sources of energy and create thousands of new American jobs, especially in rural areas. And Obama will also extend the federal Production Tax Credit (PTC) for 5 years to encourage the production of renewable energy.

* Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology....

* Safe and Secure Nuclear Energy: ... It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option. However, before an expansion of nuclear power is considered, key issues must be addressed including: security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation.... As president, Obama will make safeguarding nuclear material both abroad and in the U.S. a top anti‐terrorism priority. In terms of waste storage, Obama does not believe that Yucca Mountain is a suitable site. He will lead federal efforts to look for safe, long‐term disposal solutions based on objective, scientific analysis. In the meantime, Obama will develop requirements to ensure that the waste stored at current reactor sites is contained using the most advanced dry‐cask storage technology available.


He also repeats his climate pledge and his jobs pledge:


* Implement an economy‐wide cap‐and‐trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.

* Invest In A Clean Energy Economy and Help Create 5 Million New Green Jobs. Obama will strategically invest $150 billion over 10 years...


Finally, back to the details of the plug-in hybrid proposal:

As president, Obama will continue this leadership by investing in advanced vehicle technology with a specific focus on R&D in advanced battery technology. The increased federal funding will leverage private sector funds and support our domestic automakers to bring plug‐in hybrids and other advanced vehicles to American consumers. Obama will also provide a $7,000 tax credit for the purchase of advanced technology vehicles as well as conversion tax credits. And to help create a market and show government leadership in purchasing highly efficient cars, an Obama administration will commit to:


* Within one year of becoming President, the entire White House fleet will be converted to plug‐ins as security permits; and

* Half of all cars purchased by the federal government will be plug‐in hybrids or all‐electric by 2012.



This is an aggressive, achievable, and most important of all, a necessary energy plan. Kudos to Senator Obama and his energy team. Maybe he is The One.


* GASPUMP.jpg (184.61 KB, 504x504 - viewed 104 times.)

* OilDomestic.jpg (23.5 KB, 550x331 - viewed 108 times.)

* OilForeign.jpg (23.95 KB, 550x331 - viewed 112 times.)
Report to moderator   Logged
George Whorewell
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 6980


THEY DONT KNOW


« Reply #51 on: March 11, 2011, 12:25:38 PM »

STOP! STOP USING FACTS AND LOGIC! IT'S RACIST!
Report to moderator   Logged
GigantorX
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5463


GetBig's A-Team is the Light of Truth!


« Reply #52 on: March 11, 2011, 04:55:18 PM »



RACIST POST REPORTED
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8619


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #53 on: March 11, 2011, 05:06:08 PM »

Dylan ratigan admitted today that the media and left refuse to criticize the bama due to his race. 

Not me - I don't give a fuck one bit.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8619


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #54 on: June 01, 2011, 07:54:35 PM »

Bump. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8619


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #55 on: June 04, 2011, 07:00:48 AM »

Bump.   I guess 4 dollars a gallon is the plan Benny? 
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8619


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #56 on: June 15, 2011, 05:32:43 AM »


June 15, 2011
Obama Concedes Energy Policy Remains "a Hodgepodge"‹‹Previous Page |1 | 2 |
By Alexis Simendinger




As he travels across the country touting jobs, innovation and his re-election, President Obama consistently talks up an energy agenda for the future. And when he says future, he really means it. The president has in his mind a timetable distant enough for the U.S. reduction of global warming pollutants, for instance, that his daughters could be middle-aged before his energy goals are realized.

"We said that we've got to start investing in clean energy because as long as we are vulnerable to a system in which we have 2 percent of the world's oil reserves, but we use 25 percent of the world's oil, we'll never have our economy on a firm footing -- not to mention the environmental consequences of continuing to rely on fossil fuels," Obama said Tuesday at a speech in Miami. "And so we made the largest investment in clean energy in our history."

Obama's is a big-picture agenda praised as visionary by supporters and disastrous by critics. Regardless, a gridlocked Congress, attentive to the 2012 elections and riveted by their constituents' more immediate woes, won't be tackling major energy legislation for the remainder of Obama's current term in office. They will wait to see who occupies the White House and how control stacks up in Congress in 2013.

The 2009 cap-and-trade legislation Obama marched through the House died a slow death in the Senate when regional and partisan disagreements undercut the required 60 votes to get the legislation on and off the floor. Following an exhausting health care battle, and heading into a high-profile battle to clamp down on big banks last year, senators found themselves out of energy for energy. Then in the fall, House Democrats lost seats when opponents attacked them for supporting Obama's "cap and tax" agenda.

Other initiatives beyond those meant to curb climate change -- policies that require legislation -- also remain stalled. Meanwhile, opponents want to block -- in Congress or in the courts -- aspects of the administration's regulatory muscle tied to existing laws, such as the Clean Air Act.

In a season in which GOP presidential opponents are accusing the president of making the country less secure as its dependence on high-priced foreign oil continues, Obama finds himself on the defensive. Modest or future achievements -- such as higher vehicle fuel-efficiency requirements starting in 2017 and beyond -- don't quite appease liberals who backed Obama in 2008, and many of his bolder energy aspirations remain that: aspirations.

"My plan isn't just about making dirty energy expensive," Obama said as he began campaigning for the presidency in 2007. "It's about making clean energy affordable."

That was the Obama plan before the recession veered toward a depression and 8 million jobs evaporated. His embrace of more domestic oil drilling was overtaken by a BP oil spill catastrophe that poisoned the Gulf of Mexico. And the president had barely issued his call for more nuclear power generation in the United States when an earthquake and tsunami in Japan produced the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl.

During his campaign, Obama and his team embraced the idea of higher fuel prices to discourage gasoline consumption. With gasoline prices averaging close to $4 a gallon and households holding down consumption in a tough economy, Republicans have turned the president's earlier logic against him. Oil price spikes -- not something the president envisioned -- turn out to be something the White House cannot control.

On Tuesday, economist Douglas Elmendorf, the director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, told reporters at a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor that another oil price spike is one of the economic risks he worries about as the recovery remains fragile.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But from an economic standpoint, while higher energy prices undermine consumer confidence and squeeze household budgets, one bright spot may be the relative impermanence of the inflationary impact as long as pump prices come back down, Elmendorf said. "The general lesson of the past few decades is that even pretty big swings in oil prices do not have lasting effects on core prices."

Obama's brand of energy futurism, depending on how it is framed, could yet fall flat -- even if plenty of voters endorse his policies in the broadest terms. A patriotic, competitive message focused on "winning the future" when going head-to-head with China and other U.S. competitors does well in voter focus groups, according to one recent report.

"The future [policy] focus is on investing in education, protecting Medicare and investing in innovation and energy to create the middle-class jobs of the future," said the authors of a multi-stage Democracy Corps survey released June 2 that focused on the economy. It was conducted by Democratic firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research. The pollsters advised Democrats that a concentration on the future, rather than the past or what the president and the party inherited in 2009, was especially effective with "new Obama voters and suburban voters."

High gas prices are front and center this summer, and if that weren't enough, tornadoes, floods, joblessness and lewd lawmakers also seize public attention in ways that outstrip the president's enthusiasms for innovations in LED lighting and electric cars.

Meanwhile, futurists in the Republican Party have their own agenda, and energy is not on it. They are concentrating on the country's deficits, debt and unsustainable federal commitments.

"The Republicans' focus is almost entirely on the scale of the debt problem, the need for government to live within its means and the need for urgent action," the Democracy Corps research noted. "Their strongest messages are more positive and focus on the future. Their policy is smaller government and not passing on big debts to our children; lower taxes that grow small business and create middle-class jobs. They are centered in one element of people's current understanding of the economy, but they are suggesting they can raise incomes and create jobs, too. It shows they 'get it,' " the pollsters wrote.

In Miami Tuesday, the president joked that all manner of harrowing events keep scrambling his once-orderly roster of campaign promises. "We've been busy," Obama quipped after running through a lengthy list of domestic and global hot potatoes. "That doesn't count the pirates, the pandemic, the oil spills," he continued. "Bin Laden," shouted a member of the audience. "Bin Laden, yeah, that was another thing we did," the president agreed, as listeners applauded.

"We've got more work to do," Obama continued. "Our energy policy still is just a hodgepodge, and for all the progress we've made, we're not where we need to be in making sure that this is an energy-efficient economy that is running on all cylinders."

‹‹Previous Page |1 | 2 |


Alexis Simendinger covers the White House for RealClearPolitics. She can be reached at asimendinger@realclearpolitics.com.

Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/06/15/obama_concedes_energy_policy_remains_a_hodgepodge_110218-full.html at June 15, 2011 - 05:31:38 AM PDT
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8619


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #57 on: August 18, 2011, 06:26:49 AM »

Exxon, U.S. Government Duel Over Huge Oil Find
By RUSSELL GOLD


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903596904576514762275032794.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection



Exxon Mobil Corp. is fighting with the U.S. government to keep control of one of its biggest oil discoveries ever, in a showdown where billions of dollars hang in the balance for both sides.

View Full Image

.The massive Gulf of Mexico discovery contains an estimated one billion barrels of recoverable oil, the company says. The Interior Department, which regulates offshore drilling, says Exxon's leases have expired and the company hasn't met the requirements for an extension. Exxon has sued to retain the leases.

The court battle is playing out at a time in which the Obama administration has made an issue of unused leases, which deprive the Treasury of valuable taxes. It also comes as regulators are being careful not to be seen as lax in their dealings with large energy companies in the wake of last year's BP PLC spill.

The stakes are high: Under federal law, the leases—and all the oil underneath—could revert to the government if Exxon doesn't win in court.

The loss of the leases would be an enormous black eye for Exxon. The company hadn't previously disclosed the size of the discovery in what is called the Julia field until it was mentioned in the suit Exxon filed against the Interior Department last week in federal court in Lake Charles, La.

The Texas behemoth faces the sobering prospect that it may have made the largest discovery ever in the Gulf of Mexico only to lose it. Tens of billions of dollars of oil could slip through its hands because it failed to follow federal rules for getting a lease extension while it moved forward with plans to get the oil out of the ground.

Exxon spokesman Patrick McGinn said the company expected to get the extension, which he said was traditionally granted as a matter of course. "You state your case and you got it. [This] was unexpected."

This high-stakes standoff is likely to spark a political, as well as legal, showdown between the federal government and the nation's largest oil company. It has also roped in Norway's Statoil ASA, which owns 50% of the Julia find. Statoil said it filed its own suit Monday in the same Louisiana federal court against the Interior Department to preserve the leases. Exxon is the field's operator and lease holder.

A spokeswoman for the Interior Department said, "Our priority remains the safe development of the nation's offshore energy resources, which is why we continue to approve extensions that meet regulatory standards."

The Interior Department, which oversees offshore oil development and collects royalties, has been trying to show that it has become a tougher, but still fair, regulator of the Gulf of Mexico's oil riches. Its reputation was battered during the massive Deepwater Horizon well blowout and oil spill last year, when BP sought—and the government approved—last-minute changes to the well design, which some investigators say contributed to a chaotic environment aboard the drilling rig. The government was roundly criticized for weak oversight of safety rules.

Now the department must decide whether to fight Exxon in court or settle and allow it to develop the oil. Turning the leases over to another company would mean further delays to the tax royalties that would go to government coffers. At current prices, potential royalties paid to the government over the lifetime of a one billion-barrel field would be about $10.95 billion.

The oil industry, led vocally by Exxon, has said that developing oil fields in the deepest reaches of the Gulf takes time to do safely. And by threatening to take away a massive discovery, the industry says that the government is sending the message that oil companies need to be in a rush to produce.

The possibility that Exxon could lose this oil will likely send shock waves through the industry. "This is unprecedented," said Amy Myers Jaffe, associate director of the Energy Program at Rice University in Houston. "The question is: Do our offshore rules allow for flexibility? You don't want to let companies sit on a discovery…We definitely don't want to send the industry a message that you need to be in a rush or we'll take the oil away from you."

Exxon's lawsuit said the government has granted "thousands" of extensions over time. It said the government's denial of its extension relied on legal interpretations that it "had never before applied and had never before articulated." Statoil asserted in its lawsuit that no request for an extension for a deep-water development "had ever previously been denied." The Interior Department couldn't comment on this.

The Exxon discovery is believed to be the largest in the Gulf of Mexico since BP found the Thunder Horse Field in 1999, and it could be larger. The find also cements the Gulf of Mexico as a rich exploration area with large amounts of undiscovered oil that may keep oil companies active for years to come.

"This is very deep water, very complex structures and difficult-to-produce oil," said Exxon's Mr. McGinn.

The dispute over Exxon's plans for the Julia field began in October 2008—about a month before its 10-year leases expired—when it applied for a five-year "suspension of production."

Such extensions are "fairly common," said Elmer P. Danenberger III, a former federal official who oversaw U.S. offshore-drilling rules until he retired in 2009.

"I can honestly say that people who manage that program are really strict, which they need to be or it will be abused. If you don't have a commercial discovery and a plan for moving ahead at the end of the lease term…that's it."

In February 2009, the government denied Exxon's request for an extension and after a brief appeal denied it again that April. Exxon said in a letter at the time that it was "committed" to producing the oil, but the government said it didn't present a specific plan. The government contended this didn't meet legal requirements and denied the application.

More appeals followed, but Exxon lost its final appeal in May. The final decision hinged on whether Exxon had a concrete "commitment" to produce the oil in December 2008, when its lease expired. The director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals at the Interior Department ruled that it didn't.

Exxon is known in the industry for moving slowly and studying all options exhaustively before committing billions of dollars. But even if it loses this court case, all might not be lost. The Julia field consists of five leases—or square blocks in the Gulf of Mexico—and only three are being disputed. The other two aren't set to expire until 2013.

—Deborah Solomon

and Angel Gonzalez contributed to this article.
Write to Russell Gold at russell.gold@wsj.com

Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8619


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #58 on: January 13, 2012, 07:51:48 PM »

 Print      Close
Senators warn new EPA rules would raise gas prices
By&guy
Published January 13, 2012 | FoxNews.com


ADVERTISEMENT
Senators from both sides of the aisle are warning that looming EPA regulations on gasoline could impose billions of dollars in additional costs on the industry and end up adding up to 25 cents to every gallon of gas. 

The senators, in a letter this week to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, urged the agency to back off the yet-to-be-released regulations. Though the EPA has not yet issued any proposal, they claimed the agency is planning to call for a new requirement to reduce the sulfur content in gasoline. 

Citing the nearly $3.40-a-gallon average price of gas and the state of the economy, the senators said "now is not the time for new regulations that will raise the price of fuel even further." 

They said it would be "expensive" for companies to meet the sulfur targets and cited a study that found it could add up to $17 billion in industry-wide, up-front expenses, in addition to another $13 billion in annual operating costs. 

This could in turn add between 12 and 25 cents to an average gallon of gasoline "depending on the stringency of the proposed rule," they wrote. 

"If the EPA does not proceed carefully with its regulations, the nationwide price of fuel could increase to the further detriment of consumers and businesses," the senators warned. 

The lawmakers on the letter were: Sens. James Inhofe, R-Okla.; Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska; John Barrasso, R-Wyo.; Mary Landrieu, D-La.; David Vitter, R-La.; and Mark Begich, D-Alaska. 

The EPA did not comment on the senators' complaints. 

Asked Friday for a response to the concerns, the EPA said: "EPA is still in the process of developing the proposal." 

An EPA official said publicly in November that the agency was developing the so-called "Tier 3" standards proposal during a House subcommittee hearing. 

Margo Oge, director of the EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality, told lawmakers that the proposal would help the country meet its "clean air goals." 

"Motor vehicles and their fuel are an important source of compounds that form air pollution," she said. 

Oge said reducing sulfur in gasoline would make emission control technology more effective, and "the end result would be cleaner air." 

If the EPA formally issues the proposal, it would probably take more than a year for the agency to review public comments and finalize any plan. 

A Senate Republican aide said the authority to tighten the sulfur standards comes from the Clean Air Act but noted that EPA has the discretion to either impose the standards or not. 

The current sulfur standard is 30 parts per million in gasoline -- that's down from a prior standard of 300 parts per million. The new proposal could bring the standard down to 10 parts per million, according to the senators who wrote to Jackson 

The aide said there was a "bigger benefit" when the standard dropped from 300 to 30 parts per million. But squeezing that down to 10 parts per million, the aide said, might not offer as much bang for the buck. 

"They're extraordinarily expensive relative to the last round of sulfur reductions," the aide told FoxNews.com.

 Print      Close
URL
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/13/senators-warn-new-epa-rules-would-raise-gas-prices/

HomeVideoPoliticsU.S.Opi nionEntertainmentSciTech HealthTravelLeisureWorld SportsWeather
PrivacyTerms
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. © 2012 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved. All market data delayed 20 minutes.
Report to moderator   Logged
Shockwave
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20045


Decepticons! Scramble!


« Reply #59 on: January 13, 2012, 08:19:44 PM »

Fucking worthless. EPA needs to be fucking disbanded, seems like they dont even operate in reality, all about pushing their agenda on people and they dont give a damn who it hurts.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8619


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #60 on: January 13, 2012, 08:21:44 PM »

Fucking worthless. EPA needs to be fucking disbanded, seems like they dont even operate in reality, all about pushing their agenda on people and they dont give a damn who it hurts.


It's intentional.   Obama is trying to collapse the nation. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8619


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #61 on: March 09, 2012, 06:20:12 AM »

Plan?    What plan?  Where is it? 
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8619


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #62 on: June 19, 2012, 06:24:29 PM »

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-j-learsy/has-the-energy-department_b_1608277.html



Lol.   Even HP admitting Obama energy Dept is failure and a joke.
Report to moderator   Logged
JBGRAY
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 2020



« Reply #63 on: June 20, 2012, 01:39:47 AM »

Oh, its Benny B, the mindless liberal automaton.  I'd love to pull open your mouth with my filth-encrusted hands, peer down your gaping maw, and ask if there is a soul in there.  Cheesy

Human contribution to actual global warming is a myth...for the most part.  The world's foremost climate scientists have even stated that human activity may account for around 2% of the actual warming....and that is debatable(read it in Superfreakanomics, so I reckon it is valid).  It seems that the whole global warming phenemenon is highly politicized on both ends of the spectrum.....and that the only way to fix things is by taxing people a lot more or repressing scientific data they may disagree with.  To me, it simply looks like a racket to give certain cronies government handouts to create so-called Green jobs(hello, Solyndra).

America is not Europe.  We cannot copy their methods of transportation....we are too spread out.  Half of all new car sales are light pickup trucks.  I have a large Dodge Hemi Ram pickup truck and a large SUV.  I utilize the truck for a variety of things and often transport larger amounts of people in both.  In regards to today's gas prices, purchasing a Chevy Volt, Toyota Prius, or Smart Car is actually MORE expensive than continuing to drive your gas gulping clunker.......do you really think you can just take any of those cars to your local garage for repair?  NO, you have to take them to the dealership where you'll get raped in repair costs.  In addition, having a so-called efficient vehicle makes it impossible to haul shit around from Home Depot or pull people out of lakes when it rains down here.

The enviro-nuts are fuckin' morons, spouting off at the mouth about shit they've never researched.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8619


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #64 on: January 27, 2013, 08:50:05 AM »

Via Washington Examiner:

Chase Power, the parent company behind the $3 billion Las Brisas coal power plant in Corpus Christi, Texas, announced yesterday that it was cancelling the project.

“Chase Power … has opted to suspend efforts to further permit the facility and is seeking alternative investors as part of a plan of dissolution for the parent company,” Chase CEO Dave Freysinger told the Corpus Christi Caller-Times.

Freysinger made it very clear who was responsible for the projects death. “The (Las Brisas Energy Center) is a victim of EPA’s concerted effort to stifle solid-fuel energy facilities in the U.S., including EPA’s carbon-permitting requirements and EPA’s New Source Performance Standards for new power plants,” he said.

The Las Brisas power plant had been part of a larger Las Brisas Energy Center project planned for Corpus Christi’s Inner Harbor.Economists had projected that in the first 5 years of construction and operation the project would create as 1,300 direct and 2,600 indirect jobs. Now none of those jobs will exist.

“These costly rules exceeded the bounds of EPA authority, incur tremendous costs, and produce no real benefits related to climate change,” Freysinger commented
Report to moderator   Logged
blacken700
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 10932


Getbig!


« Reply #65 on: January 27, 2013, 09:36:50 AM »

repubs america

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mobU0j331DY" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mobU0j331DY</a>
Report to moderator   Logged
George Whorewell
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 6980


THEY DONT KNOW


« Reply #66 on: January 27, 2013, 01:03:20 PM »

repubs america

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mobU0j331DY" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mobU0j331DY</a>

That is actually Red China. You know, the same Country that Obama wishes he was in charge of. The same Country that make the New York Times Editorial shoot in their pants because China is such a shining example to America. The same country that liberal stooge and corporate puppet Jerffery Immelt (CEO of GE) praises on a regular basis.
Report to moderator   Logged
dario73
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6263


Getbig!


« Reply #67 on: January 27, 2013, 08:12:24 PM »

That is actually Red China. You know, the same Country that Obama wishes he was in charge of. The same Country that make the New York Times Editorial shoot in their pants because China is such a shining example to America. The same country that liberal stooge and corporate puppet Jerffery Immelt (CEO of GE) praises on a regular basis.

Libtards try to make everyone forget about their history, past statements, beliefs and "ideas".

HEHEHEHE!!!

Now they want us forget their love affair with China.
Report to moderator   Logged
blacken700
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 10932


Getbig!


« Reply #68 on: January 28, 2013, 07:15:53 AM »

Libtards try to make everyone forget about their history, past statements, beliefs and "ideas".

HEHEHEHE!!!

Now they want us forget their love affair with China.

i guess you missed the point,not surprising,this is what the u.s would look like without rules or regulations and no epa. oh and what's with the laugh, hehehehehe, unless your a girl  Grin
Report to moderator   Logged
Necrosis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8319


« Reply #69 on: January 28, 2013, 08:13:57 AM »

More pie in the sky empty promises...what exactly wrong with nuclear power. I grow up 6 miles from one....they should be everywhere. If ur worried about protecting them, enlarge the DOE security police. Obama can't hope to pay for any of this...and he's going to mandate Detroit. Our automotive industry is already being strangled by Unions, and this idiot wants to lay more red tape on them. Good job socialist.

maybe try reading two posts above yours. It is non-renewable, it's clear what source of energy we should be pushing for, renewable. Look at Germany.

Besides the points that Decker raised, I think chernobyl and the recent issues in Japan indicate the volatility of Nuclear Power, besides it being scarce unless physics catches up sometime soon.
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!