About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Right-Wing Media Respond To Japanese Nuclear Crisis By Attacking Renewable Energy

March 18, 2011 6:12 pm ET — 364 Comments

In the wake of the earthquake in Japan and the resulting threat of nuclear disaster in that country, right-wing media have attacked renewable energy sources such as wind and solar, arguing that it's a waste of time to pursue these sources as possible alternatives to fossil fuels and nuclear power. However, studies show that the use of wind and solar energy is increasing at a record pace, and continuing investment in wind and solar will yield significant economic benefits.

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

Conservative Media Dismiss Wind, Solar As Viable Energy Sources

Fox's Bolling Bashes Renewables By Pointing To Birds, People "Killed By Wind Turbines" And Installing Solar Panels. On his Fox Business show, discussing the nuclear crisis in Japan, Eric Bolling turned to what he said "the left wants to talk about -- a wind turbine," and showed footage of a hawk flying into a spinning wind turbine and being knocked to the ground. He then followed with footage of what appeared to be a crime scene: barrier tape in front of a solar panel sitting on the ground next to a house, and the chalk outline of a body on the ground. Bolling stated:

BOLLING: Here's Japan with an 8.9 magnitude earthquake and it survived -- not a death. You can't say that about some of the other things that the left wants to talk about. They want to talk about a wind turbine. Take a look at this. Oh!

[...]

BOLLING: All right, a wind turbine versus a beautiful hawk, innocent hawk spinning away in the sky -- wham! No more hawk. Even experts in the renewable energy point out that dozens, dozens of people have been killed by wind turbines, including one poor woman who parachuted into one. And workers have been killed falling off roofs while installing solar panels.

[...]

BOLLING: Here's the point. The point is everything comes with dangers. And Leslie, all of them. All forms of power come with danger.

LESLIE MARSHALL: They all do.

BOLLING: However, there's never been a death directly associated with a radiation leak ever in the history of North American power generated from nuclear. [Fox Business, Follow the Money, 3/11/11]

Limbaugh: "Wind And Solar Aren't Capable of Producing Anything -- They're Just Dreams Of The Environmentalist Wackos." On his radio show, Rush Limbaugh stated:

LIMBAUGH: What is U.S. energy policy? U.S. energy policy is to shut down -- you know, the -- here's something fascinating. You know, this -- folks, things do have a tendency to work out in strange ways. Would it be a safe bet that since wind and solar really aren't capable of producing anything -- they're just dreams of the environmentalist wackos. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/14/11]

Limbaugh: Solar And Wind Are "Just Not Practical." Citing the work of his "official climatologist" Roy Spencer, a scientist with the University of Alabama-Huntsville, Limbaugh further stated on his radio show:

LIMBAUGH: Practical energy sources -- see this is the thing. Practical, it's such an important word and it is so absent. Practicality takes a long vacation during an event like this.

[...]

LIMBAUGH: As Dr. Spencer, our official climatologist, Dr. Roy Spencer, University of Alabama-Huntsville, points out, practical energy sources are inherently risky. There is risk associated with virtually everything, particularly in energy production. And the reason is, is that we need so much of it. There's no way to provide it without using concentrated forms of it. Petroleum, natural gas, coal, nuclear -- those are all -- think of concentrated frozen orange juice in your can, and the way you make it is you dump that into a pitcher of water and you stir it.

Our energy sources, before we refine them and prepare them for practical use, are really concentrated in their power -- a barrel of oil, natural gas, coal, what have you. Solar and wind never compete because they produce so little energy when you look at it, say, per acre of land required. It's just not practical. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/14/11]

Limbaugh: "The Wind Will Stop Blowing. The Sun Will Be Obscured By The Clouds." Limbaugh also said:

LIMBAUGH: We get less than 1 percent of our nation's energy from solar and wind, even now. Thirty percent in this country comes from nuclear. The rest, sorry to tell you, fossil -- all natural gas and all the derivatives. And we have an appetite for it. And we better be producing it to meet our demand and grow, otherwise our economy is going to stagnate. We cannot have a growing economy and stagnating energy production at the same time -- cannot happen. We cannot grow an economy with wind energy or solar. It isn't practical. There is no concentrated form of it.

You can't even guarantee it. The wind will stop blowing. The sun will be obscured by the clouds. So all of our energy sources, all of our options have dangers, have risks inherent to their existence. Look at the deaths due to coal mine disasters. That's all in the name of fulfilling our energy needs. Natural gas explosions. Even the occasional oil rig explosion, the occasional oil tanker springing a leak. And in the context of all this, nuclear really is our safest option in the long term, especially with newer technologies. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/14/11]

Fox's Varney Dismisses Renewable Energy: "It's Not An Answer For The Whole Country." Fox Business anchor Stuart Varney hosted Bob Deans, director of Federal Communications for the Natural Resources Defense Council, to discuss the nuclear energy crisis in Japan and what it might mean for the United States. Varney subsequently dismissed renewable energy, saying, "It's not an answer for the whole country." From the show:

VARNEY: You want to extend the time frame for getting new nuclear plants online. We're probably gonna be shutting some of these coal-fired electricity plants -- and you really don't like oil. Where do we get the juice from?

[...]

VARNEY: Now, demand's gonna go up. We all know that. Demand is going -- you've got a flat-screen TV. I'm sure you do. Demand is going up and you want to reduce the -- what we get from nuclear power. You want to reduce what we get from coal power. Come on, where do you get the extra supply of juice from? Tell me.

DEANS: We need to do two things, Stuart. We need to invest in efficiency gains in this country so that we're doing more with less.

VARNEY: That's not going to do it, Bob. That's not gonna do it.

DEANS: Our economy grows. It won't get us all the way there, but what can help us, too --

VARNEY: It won't. Nowhere near. Nowhere near.

DEANS: -- are renewables. Stuart, you know, in Texas, you've been there lately, 8 percent of Texas electricity -- Texas, the oil capital of the world -- 8 percent of its electricity is now coming from wind turbines on ranches, on farms. They're helping to keep these family ranchers and farmers viable and intact, and preserve --

VARNEY: It's not an answer for the whole country, though, is it? By the way, did you bike to work today?

DEANS: Stuart, I've been fighting a cold but, normally, I do bike to work and I've been doing it for about 10 years, and I would -- I tell you, I've got a tandem and the next time you're in Washington, I'll swing by and pick you up. We can ride in together.

VARNEY: Nicely done, young man. [Fox Business, Varney & Company, 3/17/11]

Fox's LaJeunesse: Nuclear Power "Cannot Be Replaced By Wind And Solar, Which Are Subject To The Weather." On Fox News' Fox & Friends, correspondent William LaJeunesse reported on how experts believe that in a "worst-case scenario," the Japanese nuclear crisis "could disable the [nuclear] industry for decades, creating a power shortage, driving up prices." He added: "You know, what's important about nuclear, like coal, it provides something called base-load power: It's reliable, it's constant, it's immediate and it cannot be replaced by wind and solar, which are subject to the weather." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 3/15/11]

Big Journalism Contributor Horner Calls Wind, Solar Energies "Stupid, Costly And Harmful." In a post on Andrew Breitbart's BigJournalism website, Christopher Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute wrote:

[T]here is also that long trail of aspirational comments, well beyond vowing to cause electricity prices to 'skyrocket', indicating this steady gas price hike is their objective, even if overseas developments are causing problems for them [helping the rise advance too quickly such that people pay attention, with these developments adding to the price hikes the admin have built in, with much more obviously undone but hopefully on the way]. As I detailed with many more admissions ten months ago in Power Grab.

Obviously, this is one of the items worrying Team Obama, along with their foreign policy fecklessness. And -- in lieu of gimmickry to redirect voters' gazes from policies that contribute to this, such as by releasing Strategic [NB: not 'Political'] Petroleum Reserve crude -- Obama cheerleaders (like Politico) note he could take the opportunity to push his "Clean Energy Standard".

That's one of the "other ways to skin the cat" after cap-and-trade failed legislatively. Of course, for one, that is an electricity standard, adding windmill and solar panel mandates that are superfluous to a GHG rationing scheme like EPA's backdoor cap-n-trade. Because we drive wind- and solar-powered cars. Or something.

But speaking of EPA's involvement in all of this, Speaker Boehner jabbed at it yesterday when co-incidentally rolling out the Republicans' energy arguments, "American Energy". This follows up Newt Gingrich's chosen talking point -- which of course draws no line to exclude stupid, costly and harmful 'American energy' like ethanol, windmills or solar panels, any more than that previous stab of "All of the Above". Sigh. Will someone please stand up and yell "Stop!"? [BigJournalism.com, 3/11/11]

Wind, Solar Energies Continue To Grow At Record Pace

Energy Information Administration: "Wind Power Has Been The Fastest-Growing Source Of New Electric Power Generation For Several Years." According to data from the U.S. Energy Department's Energy Information Administration (EIA), "[w]ind power has been the fastest-growing source of new electric power generation for several years." The EIA further stated:

In 2009, generation from wind power increased 33.5 percent over 2008, bringing the share of total generation to 1.9 percent. This followed year-over-year generation gains of 60.7 percent in 2008, 29.6 percent in 2007, and 49.3 percent in 2006 (See the "Electric Power Annual" Table ES.1). Wind capacity in 2009 totaled 34,296 megawatts (MW), as compared to 24,651 MW in 2008. [U.S. Energy Information Administration, January 2011]

  • The EIA also included the following graphic showing the ascent of wind generation versus capacity:

[U.S. Energy Information Administration, January 2011]

Solar Energy Industries Association: "2010 Was A Banner Year For The Solar Energy Market In The United States." In its "US Solar Market Insight: Year-in-Review 2010" report, the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) found that "2010 was a banner year for the solar energy market in the United States." SEIA continued:

In contrast to U.S. GDP growth of 2.8%, the U.S. solar market grew 67% in value in 2010. Not only did the market expand greatly, but it showed substantial diversity across market segments, geography, and technologies. Solar is growing quickly across the U.S. at the residential, commercial, and utility scale levels. It is powering and heating buildings in all fifty states, and using a variety of technologies to do so. The rapid growth and unique diversity has made the U.S. market a focus of global industry attention for the first time in many years. In 2010, the U.S. solar market grew to reach $6.0 billion, up from $3.6 billion in 2009.

[...]

2011 will be a pivotal year for the U.S. PV market. While installations in the U.S. are likely to double the 2010 total, the global market will experience slower growth. As a result, much of the global PV industry is turning its eye toward the U.S. with great expectations. On the whole, the demand picture for the U.S. market appears strong. Project financing remains available at attractive terms for some projects, new markets are emerging and showing strength, and incumbent markets continue their rise. [Solar Energy Industries Association, "US Solar Market Insight: Year-in-Review 2010," 3/10/11]

SEIA CEO: "This Remarkable [2010] Growth Puts The Solar Industry's Goal Of Powering 2 Million Homes Annually By 2015 Within Reach." The day SEIA released its "Year-in-Review 2010" report, the organization's president and CEO, Rhone Resch, stated:

"This report shows that solar energy is now one of the fastest growing industries in the United States, creating new opportunities for both large and small businesses. Every day, Americans across the country are going to work at well-paying, stable jobs at solar companies, from small installers all the way up to Fortune 500 companies.

"This remarkable growth puts the solar industry's goal of powering 2 million homes annually by 2015 within reach. Achieving such amazing growth during the economic downturn shows that smart polices combined with American ingenuity adds up to a great return on investment for the public. The bottom line is that the solar energy industry is creating tens of thousands of new American jobs each year." [Solar Energy Industries Association, 3/10/11]

EIA: The U.S. Solar "Industry Hit A Record High In 2009." According to an EIA report released in January, "The U.S. photovoltaic (PV) industry hit a record high in 2009, shipping nearly 1.3 peak gigawatts of cells and modules. This represents a nearly 30-percent increase from 2008." The report further stated:

With overall shipments of 1,282,560 peak kilowatts of cells and modules in 2009, the PV industry saw increases in shipments from existing companies as well as new companies entering the PV market. The number of active PV manufacturers and/or importers that ship PV cells and modules increased 53 percent, from 66 companies in 2008 to 101 companies in 2009.

[...]

In addition, several manufacturers are planning to introduce new photovoltaic-related technical products in the next calendar year. [U.S. Energy Information Administration, January 2011]

Renewable Energy Research Shows Sector's Promising Future

Energy Department Study Concluded That Distribution Of Renewable Power Across Large Geographic Area Would "Mitigat[e] The Unpredictability Of Mother Nature." As The New York Times reported, a 2010 Department of Energy (DOE) study that focused on renewable power's "clearest drawback ... unreliability" concluded "that intermittency -- long considered a major shortcoming -- may have little impact on the potential for wind to power much of the electric grid in the western United States." The Times further reported:

The study, released in late May [2010], found that the power grid for five western states -- Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Wyoming -- could operate on as much as 30 percent wind and 5 percent solar without the construction of extensive new infrastructure.

[...]

Wind power proponents have long faced skepticism that renewables could ever displace conventional power sources in a meaningful way, with critics asserting that large coal or nuclear plants would always need to stand ready to provide backup power whenever the wind ceased to blow or clouds blocked the sun.

The authors of the N.R.E.L. [National Renewable Energy Lab] study tackled this supposition head on and found it largely baseless. It concluded that in the West, the broad distribution of wind turbines and solar generation would essentially smooth out the supply of renewable power.

"When you coordinate the operations between utilities across a large geographic area, you decrease the effect of the variability of wind and solar energy sources, mitigating the unpredictability of Mother Nature," Dr. Lew said. [The New York Times, Green, 6/1/10]

DOE Study Further Found That "Large Amounts Of Wind And Solar Can Be Incorporated Onto The [Power] Grid." In its study, the Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Lab also found that it would be "technically feasible" to "integrat[e] enough wind and solar energy capacity into the grid to produce 35 percent of its electricity by 2017," without the need for extensive additional infrastructure. In a statement, Dr. Debra Lew, the study's project manager, said: "If key changes can be made to standard operating procedures, our research shows that large amounts of wind and solar can be incorporated onto the grid without a lot of backup generation." From the study:

Though wind and solar output vary over time, the technical analysis performed in this study shows that it is operationally possible to accommodate 30 percent wind and 5 percent solar energy penetration. To accomplish such an increase, utilities will have to substantially increase their coordination of operations over wider geographic areas and schedule their generation deliveries, or sales, on a more frequent basis. Currently generators provide a schedule for a specific amount of power they will provide in the next hour. More frequent scheduling would allow generators to adjust that amount of power based on changes in system conditions such as increases or decreases in wind or solar generation.

The study also finds that if utilities generate 27 percent of their electricity from wind and solar energy across the Western Interconnection grid, it would lower carbon emissions by 25 to 45 percent, depending on the future price of natural gas. It would also decrease fuel and emissions costs by 40 percent. [Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Lab, "How Do Levels Of Wind and Solar Impact the Grid? The Western Wind and Solar Integration Study," 5/20/10]

DOE Report Found Considerable Advantages To Having 20 Percent Wind Contribution To U.S. Electricity Supply By 2030. In a 2008 report, the Department of Energy found there would be considerable benefits if wind power was expanded to provide 20 percent of U.S. electricity needs by 2030. From the report:

To implement the 20% Wind Scenario, new wind power installations would increase to more than 16,000 MW per year by 2018, and continue at that rate through 2030, as shown in Figure A. Wind plant costs and performance are projected to improve modestly over the next two decades, but no technological breakthroughs are needed. In the 20% wind scenario, 46 states would experience significant wind power development.

[...]

Using more domestic wind power will diversify the nation's energy portfolio -- adding wind-generated electricity at stable prices not subject to market volatility -- and strengthening national energy security through reduced reliance on foreign sources of natural gas. The 20% Wind Scenario would alter U.S. electricity generation as shown in Figure B. In this scenario, wind would supply enough energy to displace about 50% of electric utility natural gas consumption by 2030. This amounts to an 11% reduction in natural gas across all industries. Also, coal consumption would be reduced by 18%. In addition, electric utilities are learning how to accommodate wind's variability while maintaining system reliability.

[...]

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the principal GHG in the earth's atmosphere. Approximately 40% of total U.S. CO2 emissions come from power generation facilities. Since substantial amounts of coal and natural gas fuels would be displaced, the 20% Wind Scenario could reduce CO2 emissions in 2030 by 825 million metric tons -- 25% of the CO2 emissions from the nation's electric sector in the no-new-wind scenario. ... [T]his reduction could nearly level projected growth in CO2 emissions from electricity generation. [Department of Energy, "20% Wind Energy By 2030," May 2008]

Study: Pairing Natural Gas With Renewable Energy "Could Play A Major Role In Fueling A Clean-Energy Future." In its March 2011 study, "Clean Energy Trends 2011," Clean Edge, a "research and advisory firm devoted to the clean-tech sector," reported that pairing natural gas with renewable energy "could play a major role in fueling a clean energy future," writing, "If the pairing of gas with renewables proves successful, it could also play a major role in fueling a clean-energy future." Clean Edge further wrote:

The integration of natural gas and renewable energy offers an opportunity to transition smoothly away from dirty energy sources. One key trend in pairing natural gas with renewables has been the development of solar-gas hybrid systems, such as Florida Power & Light's Martin Next Generation Solar Energy Center, which recently connected a 75 MW concentrated solar power (CSP) plant to the largest natural gas plant in the U.S. (3.8 GW). Other hybrid plants in development include an NV Energy project in Nevada and two separate projects in California led by Inland Energy. Along with tackling renewables' intermittency issues, hybrid plants are an enticing idea because the sharing of existing infrastructure, such as turbines and transmission lines, promises to reduce upfront capital costs.

Integrated solar combined cycle (ISCC) plants, which increase steam generation by adding solar heat to gas-turbine waste heat, are another example of the mixing of solar and gas.

[...]

Pairing wind with gas is also in the works. U.S.-based energy developer Altresco aims to combine wind and gas at the plant level by integrating wind turbines and gas generators in a micro-grid. PG&E's recently commissioned natural gas-fired Colusa Generating Station near Maxwell, California is designed to reduce power when renewables become available. And in North Dakota, the planned 2,000 MW Hartland Wind Farm will "firm" output with roughly 500 MW of natural gas capacity.

Despite the potential for clean tech to benefit from natural gas, environmental risks from gas drilling are a very real concern. Indeed, the threat of drinking water and soil contamination, blowouts, and other concerns have caused some to ban the practice of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, altogether. New York, rich in shale gas reserves, has issued a temporary moratorium on fracking until investigators comprehensively review the practice. Some environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and Worldwatch Institute have cautiously supported the marriage of natural gas and renewables as a bridge to a clean-energy future, but only if it is done in an environmentally sensitive, responsible, and fully transparent way. [Clean Energy Trends 2011, March 2011]

Scientific American: There Is "Plenty Of Supply" For Renewables To Provide 100 Percent Of The World's Energy. Discussing its plan for wind, water, and solar technologies to provide 100 percent of the world's energy by 2030, Scientific American argued that there is "plenty of supply" to be able to do so. The magazine wrote:

Today the maximum power consumed worldwide at any given moment is about 12.5 trillion watts (terawatts, or TW), according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The agency projects that in 2030 the world will require 16.9 TW of power as global population and living standards rise, with about 2.8 TW in the U.S. The mix of sources is similar to today's, heavily dependent on fossil fuels. If, however, the planet were powered entirely by WWS, with no fossil-fuel or biomass combustion, an intriguing savings would occur. Global power demand would be only 11.5 TW, and U.S. demand would be 1.8 TW. That decline occurs because, in most cases, electrification is a more efficient way to use energy. For example, only 17 to 20 percent of the energy in gasoline is used to move a vehicle (the rest is wasted as heat), whereas 75 to 86 percent of the electricity delivered to an electric vehicle goes into motion.

Even if demand did rise to 16.9 TW, WWS sources could provide far more power. Detailed studies by us and others indicate that energy from the wind, worldwide, is about 1,700 TW. Solar, alone, offers 6,500 TW. Of course, wind and sun out in the open seas, over high mountains and across protected regions would not be available. If we subtract these and low-wind areas not likely to be developed, we are still left with 40 to 85 TW for wind and 580 TW for solar, each far beyond future human demand. Yet currently we generate only 0.02 TW of wind power and 0.008 TW of solar. These sources hold an incredible amount of untapped potential. [Scientific American, 10/26/09]

Scientific American: "The Worldwide Footprint Of The 3.8 Million Turbines Would Be Less Than ... Manhattan." In its 100-percent renewable scenario, Scientific American estimated that wind energy would supply 51 percent of the demand, "provided by 3.8 million large wind turbines (each rated at five megawatts) worldwide." It stated:

Although that quantity may sound enormous, it is interesting to note that the world manufactures 73 million cars and light trucks every year. Another 40 percent of the power comes from photovoltaics and concentrated solar plants, with about 30 percent of the photovoltaic output from rooftop panels on homes and commercial buildings. About 89,000 photovoltaic and concentrated solar power plants, averaging 300 megawatts apiece, would be needed. Our mix also includes 900 hydroelectric stations worldwide, 70 percent of which are already in place.

Only about 0.8 percent of the wind base is installed today. The worldwide footprint of the 3.8 million turbines would be less than 50 square kilometers (smaller than Manhattan). When the needed spacing between them is figured, they would occupy about 1 percent of the earth's land, but the empty space among turbines could be used for agriculture or ranching or as open land or ocean. The nonrooftop photovoltaics and concentrated solar plants would occupy about 0.33 percent of the planet's land. Building such an extensive infrastructure will take time. But so did the current power plant network. And remember that if we stick with fossil fuels, demand by 2030 will rise to 16.9 TW, requiring about 13,000 large new coal plants, which themselves would occupy a lot more land, as would the mining to supply them. [Scientific American, 10/26/09]

Scientific American Predicts Renewables To Be Less Costly In The Long Run. In answering the question of how affordable renewables would be in its 2030 scenario, the magazine wrote:

For each technology, we calculated how much it would cost a producer to generate power and transmit it across the grid. We included the annualized cost of capital, land, operations, maintenance, energy storage to help offset intermittent supply, and transmission. Today the cost of wind, geothermal and hydroelectric are all less than seven cents a kilowatt-hour (¢/kWh); wave and solar are higher. But by 2020 and beyond wind, wave and hydro are expected to be 4¢/kWh or less.

For comparison, the average cost in the U.S. in 2007 of conventional power generation and transmission was about 7¢/kWh, and it is projected to be 8¢/kWh in 2020. Power from wind turbines, for example, already costs about the same or less than it does from a new coal or natural gas plant, and in the future wind power is expected to be the least costly of all options. The competitive cost of wind has made it the second-largest source of new electric power generation in the U.S. for the past three years, behind natural gas and ahead of coal.

Solar power is relatively expensive now but should be competitive as early as 2020. A careful analysis by Vasilis Fthenakis of Brookhaven National Laboratory indicates that within 10 years, photovoltaic system costs could drop to about 10¢/kWh, including long-distance transmission and the cost of compressed-air storage of power for use at night. The same analysis estimates that concentrated solar power systems with enough thermal storage to generate electricity 24 hours a day in spring, summer and fall could deliver electricity at 10¢/kWh or less. [Scientific American, 10/26/09]

Hydropower Supplies Nearly 40 Percent Of Norway's Total Energy

International Energy Agency Review Of Norway's Energy Policies Found Country Is Well-Placed To Make Necessary Investments For A Low-Carbon Future." In its review of Norway's energy policies, the International Energy Agency (IEA) concluded that "Norway is pursuing ambitious, forward-thinking energy policies, but could go further in its efforts to become a low-carbon economy." The IEA added:

Norway 2011 Review says that it will be challenging for Norway to meet its 2020 target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 30% compared with 1990 levels, because both the country's electricity supply and its energy use in buildings are already essentially carbon-free due to hydropower use.

The authors add, however, that because of the large revenue generated from oil and gas exports, Norway is particularly well-placed to invest in developing new solutions to achieve the desired low-carbon future. These solutions include new measures to promote greater energy efficiency and use of renewable energy.

"Norway's climate and energy policies stand out as a positive example for other countries," said Nobuo Tanaka, Executive Director of the IEA, at the launch of the review in Oslo, on 15 March. "But Norway must now invest in developing new measures in order to continue moving forward towards its ultimate goal of becoming carbon-neutral by 2050."

[...]

Norway's total primary energy supply was 26.5 million tonnes of oil equivalent in 2009. Its energy mix is dominated by hydropower, which accounts for nearly 40% of its total primary energy supply, followed by oil (34%) and natural gas (20%), biomass and waste (5%) and coal (2%). [International Energy Agency, 3/15/11]

Economic Opportunities Abound In Wind, Solar Technologies

Study: "Clean Tech Has Proven To Be A Significant Business Opportunity." In its March 2011 study, "Clean Energy Trends 2011," Clean Edge found that over the past decade, "clean tech has proven to be a significant business opportunity, and its growth rates now rival that of earlier technology revolutions like telephony, computers, and the Internet." Clean Edge further reported:

According to Clean Edge research, the global market for solar photovoltaics (PV) has expanded from just $2.5 billion in 2000 to $71.2 billion in 2010, for example, representing a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 39.8 percent. The global market for wind power, which like solar PV we have tracked every year for the past decade, has similarly expanded from a global market worth $4.5 billion in 2000 to more than $60.5 billion today, for a CAGR of 29.7 percent. And these growth rates are not limited to solar and wind. Other clean-tech sectors, such as hybrid electric vehicles, green buildings, and smart grid, have seen similarly spectacular growth rates.

This overall trend for clean-tech markets continued to be one of growth and expansion in 2010. Combined global revenue for solar PV, wind power, and biofuels surged by 35.2 percent over the prior year, growing from $139.1 billion to $188.1 billion. The bulk of this expansion came from a more than doubling in global solar PV installations. For the first time since we began tracking the wind sector, however, we witnessed a slight year-over-year decline in market size. [Clean Energy Trends 2011, March 2011]

Study: Wind Power "Is Projected To Expand From $60.5 Billion In 2010 To $122.9 Billion In 2020." Clean Edge further reported in its Clean Energy Trends study:

Wind power (new installation capital costs) is projected to expand from $60.5 billion in 2010 to $122.9 billion in 2020. Last year's global wind power installations declined slightly to 35.2 GW, down from a record 37.5 GW the prior year. China, the global leader in new installations for the third year in a row, continued to see an increase with total installations of more than 16 GW. The U.S. continued to see significant declines in the face of a tight project finance market, uncertainty around project grants until late in 2010, and the lack of a federal RPS, among other challenges, adding only half as much capacity as the prior year with just 5 GW installed in 2010. Against this backdrop, China surpassed the U.S. for the title of global leader in total cumulative installs for wind power, with a capacity of more than 42 GW.

Solar photovoltaics (including modules, system components, and installation) are projected to grow from a $71.2 billion industry in 2010 to $113.6 billion by 2020. New installations reached more than 15.6 GW worldwide in 2010, a more than doubling from 7.1 GW in 2009. The level of growth and expansion in solar PV was a direct result of PV prices dropping by more than 30 percent in 2009 followed by an additional 10 percent drop in 2010. [Clean Energy Trends 2011, March 2011]

Study: "In 2010, U.S.-Based Venture Capital Investments In Clean Technologies Increased ... 45.7 Percent." According to data obtained by Clean Edge, "In 2010, U.S.-based venture capital investments in clean technologies increased from $3.5 billion in 2009 to $5.1 billion in 2010, an increase of 45.7 percent, according to data provided by the Cleantech Group." The group continued:

While falling short of 2008's record-breaking $6.1 billion total, 2010's more than $5 billion represented nearly a quarter of all VC activity in the country last year, a new record. In addition, the more than 370 deals in 2010 represents the largest number of financings recorded in a one-year period. Of the 10 largest clean-tech venture deals in 2010, five were for solar, two were for EVs, two were for bio-based materials, and one was for geothermal. [Clean Energy Trends 2011, March 2011]

Bloomberg New Energy Finance: "The Largest Investment Asset Class In 2010 Was ... Asset Finance Of Utility-Scale Projects Such As Wind Farms, Solar Parks And Biofuel Plants." According to a press release from Bloomberg New Energy Finance:

New investment in clean energy smashed through previous levels to reach $243bn in 2010, according to the latest figures from research company Bloomberg New Energy Finance. This is up 30% from a revised figure of $186.5bn in 2009, and makes 2010 easily the strongest year so far for investment in clean energy -- double the figure recorded in 2006 and nearly five times that from 2004.

The authoritative Bloomberg New Energy Finance time series shows total investment growing from $51.7bn in 2004, to $76.3bn in 2005, $112.9bn in 2006, $150.8bn in 2007, $180.1bn in 2008 and $186.5bn in 20091. The main drivers of the rapid growth in investment in 2010 were China, European offshore wind, European rooftop solar and research & development.

Investment in small-scale, distributed generation projects surged by 91% last year to $59.6bn, with the dominant element rooftop and other small-scale solar projects, notably in Germany but also in the US, the Czech Republic, Italy and elsewhere.

[...]

Venture capital and private equity investment had a strong year, up 28% from the 2009 total to reach $8.8bn, though failing to match 2008's record figure of $11.8bn. Among the private equity deals of 2010 were a $400m financing for US wind project developer Pattern Energy Group, and $350m for Better Place, the US-based electric vehicle charging network specialist.

[...]

The largest investment asset class in 2010 was, as usual, asset finance of utility-scale projects such as wind farms, solar parks and biofuel plants. This rose 19% to $127.8bn last year. [Bloomberg New Energy Finance, 1/11/11]

Bloomberg New Energy Finance CEO: Investment Record "Flies In The Face Of Scepticism About The Clean Energy Sector." In a press release, Bloomberg New Energy Finance CEO Michael Liebreich stated:

"This is a spectacular result, beating previous record investment levels by a clear margin of more than $50bn. It flies in the face of scepticism about the clean energy sector among public market investors, who have been concerned about the sustainability of subsidy programmes in Europe, the failure of the Obama administration to deliver a climate or an energy deal, and the crescendo of ill-informed doubts about climate change.

"We have been saying for some time that the world needs to reach a figure of $500bn per annum investment in clean energy if we are to see carbon emissions peak by 2020. What we are seeing in these figures for the first time is that we are half-way there, and it is very good news."

[...]

"2011 will have to be a very strong year to beat 2010. At this stage, the signs are encouraging, with further cost improvements likely in both solar panels and wind turbines, and the supply of private sector debt and equity finance improving from its low point during and after the banking crisis. We are watching what happens to distributed generation particularly keenly -- the extraordinary growth surprised us last year, and we will have to wait and see what happens as Germany reduces its solar tariffs." [Bloomberg New Energy Finance, Press Release, 1/11/11]

EIA: Solar Industry Added "More Than 28 Percent" Employment In 2009. According to the EIA, "Corresponding to the strong growth in PV shipments, employment in PV-related activities increased more than 28 percent, from 11,245 person-years[1] in 2008 to 14,443 person-years in 2009. ... Of the 101 companies, 70 had 90 percent or more of their total company-wide revenues in PV-related activities, 10 had 50 to 89 percent, 8 had 10 to 49 percent, and 13 had less than 10 percent." The EIA further reported:

Total revenue of photovoltaic cell and module shipments grew nearly 3 percent from $3.34 billion in 2008 to $3.43 billion in 2009. ... Revenue includes charges for cooperative advertising and warranties, but does not include excise taxes and the cost of freight or transportation.

The average price for modules (dollars per peak watt) decreased 20 percent, from $3.49 in 2008 to $2.79 in 2009. For cells, the average price decreased more than 34 percent, from $1.94 in 2008 to $1.27 in 2009. [U.S. Energy Information Administration, January 2011]

DOE Report Found Considerable Economic Impacts Of Wind Power. From the 2008 Department of Energy study titled, "20% Wind Energy By 2030":

The report finds that, during the decade preceding 2030, the U.S. wind industry could:

support roughly 500,000 jobs in the U.S., with an annual average of more than 150,000 workers directly employed by the wind industry;
support more than 100,000 jobs in associated industries (e.g., accountants, lawyers, steel workers, and electrical manufacturing);
support more than 200,000 jobs through economic expansion based on local spending;
increase annual property tax revenues to more than $1.5 billion by 2030; and
increase annual payments to rural landowners to more than $600 million in 2030. [Department of Energy, "20% Wind Energy By 2030," May 2008]

Polling Shows Majority Of Americans Approve Of Renewables

Pollster Su Midghall: In Pacific Northwest, "An Overwhelming Percentage ... Support Wind Farms Being Developed Within Sight Of Their Homes." As NPR reported, a recent poll asking residents of Oregon, Idaho, and Washington "how they would feel if the enormous turbines were erected near their homes" found that "[a]n overwhelming percentage -- 80% actually of residents of rural areas of the Northwest -- support wind farms being developed within sight of their homes," in the words of Su Midghall, a pollster with DHM Research. Midghall added: "What's more interesting is that 50% strongly -- not just somewhat -- but strongly support this." From NPR:

[NPR, 1/7/11]

  • DHM Research surveyed 1,200 adults in the Pacific Northwest states of Washington, Idaho, and Oregon, between December 17, 2010 and January 3, 2011 using an online questionnaire. The study found that 79 percent of rural/small town respondents in "support wind farms being erected within sight of [their] home[s]," while 14 percent oppose them. Among suburb/city respondents, 87 percent "support wind farms being erected in the rural areas near the city [they] live in," while 8 percent said they would be opposed. [DHM Research, 1/7/11]

Gallup Poll Found Similar Support Nationwide For Renewable Energy. In a poll conducted in January, Gallup found that "[o]f eight actions Congress could take this year, Americans most favor an energy bill that provides incentives for using alternative energy." The poll found that 83 percent of Americans, from both political parties, favor "passing an energy bill that provides incentives for using solar and other alternative energy sources." Gallup stated: "[T]he alternative energy bill and tax code overhaul ideas show the greatest bipartisan agreement, with 74% or more of each party group favoring these." [Gallup, 2/2/11]

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by RobertPaulson (March 18, 2011 6:33 pm ET)
         
      It would be great to see alternative energy become our primary source of energy. I just read an article about advances in wave energy research that lifted my spirits a little. My question is this, would getting off of oil for our energy make a dent in our reliance on petroleum used to manufacture all our products? In other words how much petroleum is used for fuel and energy vs. how much petroleum do we use for manufacturing? How do we reconcile our need for petroleum with our need for a healthy environment?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Badtime (March 18, 2011 6:48 pm ET)
      28 2
      It doesn't matter how much data you present. It doesn't matter how logical your position is, or how it is in everyone's best interest (economically and environmentally) to move towards renewable energy.

      The talking heads will always be against it, and people who listen to them don't do silly things like reading or thinking for themselves.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by handsomejack54 (March 19, 2011 2:56 am ET)
        18 2
        if it doesn't fuel their 12 Hummers the way they want, then it doesn't count as an energy source. that's their logic.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Egbert Souse (March 19, 2011 10:40 am ET)
        10 2
        If wind and solar energy production could have a depletion allowance, then the NeoCons and their boot-lickers would be all for them.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by progressivesrliars (March 19, 2011 12:06 pm ET)
        3 32
        Badtime: No one is against producing energy in what ever way it can be produced. That is just left wing spin. Market forces will dictate the answer to energy source's, not the government. I read the comments posted above that purports to prove the right wing media is attacking renewable energy. LIES. Nothing I read above shows the right wing media doing anything of the sort. People discussing their opinions on a subject is not the right wing media attacking anything. It is individuals expressing their opinions, and the right wing media allowing all points of view to be expressed. I understand that the concept of allowing more than one opinion on a subject goes against what you lefties believe in, but the rest of the country believes in freedom of opinion. That is why we listen to right wing media overwhelmingly more than we listen to the left wing media.

        Al Gore: "I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are...." Grist Magazine (May 9, 2006)
        Report Abuse
        • Author by CoolSlaw (March 19, 2011 1:39 pm ET)
          22 2
          I read the comments posted above that purports to prove the right wing media is attacking renewable energy. LIES.


          You wouldn't have to read beyond the first set of quotes from Bolling. Honestly, please read the friggin' article before posting your nonsense.

          I'm so bored of you already. You don't try to even mask your obtuse insincerity.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by jonimacaroni1 (March 19, 2011 2:40 pm ET)
            16 1
            None are so blind as those who won't see.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by progressivesrliars (March 19, 2011 2:47 pm ET)
            1 24
            CoolSlaw: I have. Nothing I see amounts to "attacking" renewable energy.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Johaely (March 19, 2011 5:37 pm ET)
              14 1
              BOLLING: All right, a wind turbine versus a beautiful hawk, innocent hawk spinning away in the sky -- wham! No more hawk. Even experts in the renewable energy point out that dozens, dozens of people have been killed by wind turbines, including one poor woman who parachuted into one. And workers have been killed falling off roofs while installing solar panels.


              I don't know you, but exagerating accidental deathsdoes sound to me like attacking renewable energy.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by hypocritesRus (March 20, 2011 10:36 am ET)
                2 12
                That's a good example, johaely. Fearmongering by the right-wing media to create an atmosphere of fear and misinformation about alternative energy sources is very bad. It seems quite the exact thing that the left-wing media does toward right-wing talking-heads; saying that right-wing personalities are calling for murders of people during their shows. Now everyone KNOWS nothing of that sort happens, but left-wingers will continue to whine about how right-wingers mentioned something on air and that will cause many to murder others. Just like right-wingers seem to be whining about alternative energy sources as being the cause of many deaths.

                Both circumstances are despicably false, but hardly unexpected. So, I guess if left-wing media can "attack" right-wingers for causing deaths they never caused, then right-wing media can "attack" renewable energy for causing deaths they never caused. It does seem to be a 'right' that the left claims to have (spouting opinion as fact), I don't see how they can now claim that the right-wing does NOT have that same right. Doesn't that seem a bit hypocritical to you?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by foghornleghorn (March 20, 2011 10:51 am ET)
                  11 3
                  So, I guess if left-wing media can "attack" right-wingers for causing deaths they never caused

                  Dr. Tiller the Baby Killer.

                  The guy who shot the cops because he thought Obama was gonna take away his guns/

                  The guy who attacked the Tides office after listening to Beck?

                  Doesn't that seem a bit hypocritical to you?

                  No.

                  The difference is that the right-wing crazies take the calls to action by their political/media matters seriously and act on them.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by hypocritesRus (March 20, 2011 11:02 am ET)
                    2 12
                    And those are exactly the kind of examples I was thinking of when I wrote what I wrote. NO right-winger "called" for those people to do what they did. Those people "interpreted" what they heard into a twisted bit of maniacal mayhem and did what they did on their own accord.

                    Thanks for proving what I said is true and that left-wingers are now being very hypocritical concerning deaths caused by un-related objects/statements. Don't worry, though, it isn't anything unexpected from the left.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by foghornleghorn (March 20, 2011 12:13 pm ET)
                      8 3
                      They may not have "called" for the action to occur, but their listeners/followers interpreted their words as a call to action.

                      Why can't you underestand that the Fox/hate radio followers are prone to violence? How many more examples do you need?
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by hypocritesRus (March 20, 2011 12:25 pm ET)
                        2 8
                        At what point did I say anyone wasn't prone to violence? What I seem to be concerned with is the hypocrisy of the left-wing media claiming deaths are caused by right-wing personalities when that isn't true (and you admitted that fact), while they denounce right-wing media for pointing out deaths caused by an industry when that isn't true.

                        Perhaps you should re-read my first statement. What part of it are you having trouble understanding?
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by foghornleghorn (March 20, 2011 2:47 pm ET)
                          9 2
                          hypocrisy of the left-wing media claiming deaths are caused by right-wing personalities when that isn't true

                          There is no left-wing media. And no one is claiming these attacks are caused by Fox/hate radio. It's just that their violent listeners act on their words.

                          There is no hypocrisy. Make a note of it.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by hypocritesRus (March 20, 2011 3:06 pm ET)
                            2 10
                            You know ... you couldn't make a decent argument concerning your statements in any other article you've commented on. I should have known you couldn't do it in this article either. Thanks for being a prime example of left-wing mentality.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by foghornleghorn (March 20, 2011 3:16 pm ET)
                              10 2
                              You're the one who can't back up your argument with facts. Thanks for being a prime example of fact-free right-wing thinking.

                              Provide some facts and then you'll get a civil discussion.
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by hypocritesRus (March 20, 2011 3:20 pm ET)
                                1 10
                                What FACTS am I not giving? I think it was YOU who made claims of fact without supporting evidence. You MUST have had several adult beverages already, huh?
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by foghornleghorn (March 20, 2011 4:03 pm ET)
                                  11 2
                                  So, I guess if left-wing media can "attack" right-wingers for causing deaths they never caused

                                  No facts.

                                  saying that right-wing personalities are calling for murders of people during their shows

                                  No facts.

                                  So, I guess if left-wing media can "attack" right-wingers for causing deaths they never caused

                                  No facts.

                                  You started with fact-free opinions. I called you out on it. You say I'm drunk. You have issues.
                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by hypocritesRus (March 20, 2011 4:14 pm ET)
                                    2 10
                                    What is Mediamatters (and it's posters doing right now), if they aren't attacking right-wingers for causing deaths?

                                    And my opinion that you've had a couple still stands. You certainly act like it.
                                    Report Abuse
                                    • Author by foghornleghorn (March 20, 2011 4:18 pm ET)
                                      10 2
                                      Media Matters and the people who post here are NOT the media.

                                      Make a note of it.
                                      Report Abuse
                                      • Author by hypocritesRus (March 20, 2011 6:18 pm ET)
                                        1 9
                                        Mediamatters is absolutely the media. If you're going to deny that portion of this discussion, why even bother trying to make any excuses? Oh, that's right, you're a left-winger ... your specialty is making excuses.
                                        Report Abuse
                                        • Author by foghornleghorn (March 20, 2011 7:57 pm ET)
                                          9 2
                                          Mediamatters is absolutely the media

                                          Liar. Media Matters doesn't do any original reporting. It is not a media outlet.

                                          Why do you have to lie to make a point?

                                          Report Abuse
                                        • Author by jbrantow (March 20, 2011 8:24 pm ET)
                                          6 1
                                          Traveller spews a LOT of crap but that's really all it is.
                                          Report Abuse
                                • Author by CoolSlaw (March 20, 2011 4:36 pm ET)
                                  8 1
                                  What FACTS am I not giving? I think it was YOU who made claims of fact without supporting evidence. You MUST have had several adult beverages already, huh?


                                  Stop the whining and dodging ans spinning.

                                  Your whole argument is NONSENSE.

                                  You compare theoretical accidental deaths with real premeditated murder. It's apples and oranges to begin with. There have been countless deaths around the development of fossil fuels, especially in the infancy of those industries.

                                  The ONE death that gets brought up with the person parachuting sounds like a lie, but even if it's true...do you think that person would have lived parachuting into a nuclear reactor? A coal smokestack? An Oil tank?

                                  Please stop this off topic spin, and for the love of the English language, stop WHINING.
                                  Report Abuse
            • Author by kabniel (March 20, 2011 10:00 am ET)
              9 1
              You are a LIAR
              Limbaugh
              "Wind And Solar Aren't Capable of Producing Anything -- They're Just Dreams Of The Environmentalist Wackos


              Saying that is not an attack on renewable energy is not just a lie it is a lie so stupid and so transparent only a complete idiot would make the claim
              Report Abuse
          • Author by xavier_ninnis (March 20, 2011 3:33 pm ET)
            1 2
            CoolSlaw, this is totally "off topic" but may I ask what general part of the Country you hail from?
            I'm interested because I've noticed a number of people I work with, all of whom are from the midwest, use the phrase "bored of"; whereas in Oregon, where I grew up, it was as near as I can recall, always phrased "bored with".
            Just curious, you're of course welcome to ignore this, or even tell me: "It's none of your damned business!".
            : )
            Report Abuse
            • Author by CoolSlaw (March 20, 2011 4:59 pm ET)
              2  
              Never even thought of that one as being a regional dialect.

              Pennsylvania, where I grew up, is kind of a cultural crossroads for those little dialect changes.

              I'll say "stand in line" and then drive fifty miles to hear people say "stand on line". I'll ask for a carbonated beverage as a "soda" but go a little west and they ask for a "pop". "Dinner" and "supper" both refer to the evening meal, but that changes as you go in almost any direction and "dinner" starts to refer to the noontime meal or "lunch" as everyone calls it in my neck of the woods. We also have the bad habit around here of saying "youse" like the New Yorkers, but go just south into Maryland and Virginia, and it's "Y'all".

              It's always interesting to hear the little differences between regions.


              Report Abuse
        • Author by kabniel (March 20, 2011 9:57 am ET)
          7 1
          conservativesRmorons

          You are a liar. You are too stupid to understand what 'market forces' really means. It means oil corporations will stop at nothing to maintain their grip on the most profitable of all enterprises. Owning and selling a growing share of a dwindling resource.

          Telling lies, and ignorant brainwashed propaganda parrots like YOU define what you rightwing imbeciles believe in. I mean to the extent you believe ANYTHING other than what Rush and Beck TELL you to believe
          Report Abuse
          • Author by What Happens When The Oil Is Gone (March 20, 2011 1:40 pm ET)
            2 7
            Do me a favor. Live one week of your life boycotting everything that either requires oil or is made from it. Let me know how that goes.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by jonimacaroni1 (March 20, 2011 2:01 pm ET)
              7 2
              Yes, it's true, our world desperately needs us to find alternatives for oil for anything and everything we can.

              That has nothing to do with everyone using oil until those alternatives are invented and affordable! Your point is only on the top of your head, not in what you posted.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by foghornleghorn (March 20, 2011 2:49 pm ET)
                7 1
                You're arguing with another nutjob who's cursed with binary thinking. It's either all oil or no oil. There is no in-between.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by What Happens When The Oil Is Gone (March 20, 2011 3:40 pm ET)
                  1 5
                  There is an in-between. There just isn't one to support 8+ billion people and growing. The problem is not that the right wing undermines renewable energy sources, the problem is that the left wing takes fossil fuels for granted.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by foghornleghorn (March 20, 2011 4:07 pm ET)
                    7  
                    The problem is not that the right wing undermines renewable energy

                    Yes, that is the problem. The left-wing is guilty as well, but not to the extent that the right-wing is.

                    the problem is that the left wing takes fossil fuels for granted.

                    Liar. That is not the problem. The left-wing does not take fossil fuels for granted. The left-wing realizes that we need alternatives and we can't drill ourselves to energy self-sufficiency.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by What Happens When The Oil Is Gone (March 20, 2011 5:01 pm ET)
                      1 4
                      What is the problem with undermining alternative energy sources that are nowhere near viable solutions to fossil fuels?
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by CoolSlaw (March 20, 2011 5:20 pm ET)
                        9 1
                        What is the problem with undermining alternative energy sources that are nowhere near viable solutions to fossil fuels?


                        So you are one of these dullards that believes that on the day the first automobile rolled off the assembly line, people across America had no choice but to kill all their horses, and burn all the wagons, carts, and stagecoaches? That we scuttled and sank every sailing ship on the day the first steamboat graced the waters? We tossed all our torches, oil lamps, and candles into the nearest lake on the day the first light bulb was invented?

                        It's not just binary thinking that makes conservatives so difficult to deal with, it's also your complete lack of imagination and your limited historical context.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by What Happens When The Oil Is Gone (March 20, 2011 6:13 pm ET)
                          1 8
                          The only problem with your example is that automobiles were always a viable solution to horse and buggy. So the transition, even though it didn't happen over night, made sense.

                          The solution the alternative energy crowd is putting forth is in essence a return to horse and buggy.

                          Why must liberals, when having a conversation with someone with an opposing view, always attack their intellect like it strengthens their argument?
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by Johaely (March 20, 2011 7:57 pm ET)
                            4  
                            Cars weren't a viable solution to the horse and buggy in their infancy. They were extremely expensive, difficult to use and ineficient. It required a whole team of people to move and steer the first car.

                            Also tell me how is creating a sell subsisting technology going backwards? Oil is a finite resource while natural forces like solar, geothermal, wind and hydroelectric have existed since the begining of life and will exist even after its gone.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by What Happens When The Oil Is Gone (March 20, 2011 9:38 pm ET)
                              1 4
                              You have to take into account the difference in society between then and now. Back then society was much more localized so automobiles were considered a luxury since they were not needed. Back then horse and buggy was all people needed.

                              Through the invention of automobiles life became globalized so in comparison horse and buggy was no longer a viable option of transportation. It would still be much cheaper to travel by horse and buggy however most people would be unable to sustain their current lifestyle that way.

                              Another problem is solar, wind, geothermal, and hydroelectric do not help me run my internal combustion vehicle, they do not supply farmers with fertilizer to mass produce the food society relies on, or produce the medicine doctors use to treat patients. And many other oil produced commodities.

                              This is much more than an energy issue.

                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by Johaely (March 20, 2011 10:40 pm ET)
                                3  
                                Most of the petrol used goes towards energy prduction and fuels. In japan they have been developing Hydrogen cells (substitute for fuel). If we were to aply renewables and developed alternative fuels, we could focus all the petrol on things that are needed for development. Stop trapping yourself in a corner.
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by What Happens When The Oil Is Gone (March 21, 2011 12:02 pm ET)
                                  1 2
                                  Hydrogen fuel cell technology.

                                  This sheds some light on hydrogen fuel cells.

                                  I feel as though none of you are grasping the argument I am making. I am not saying that these alternative energy sources are unable to create energy. I understand that all of them have the ability to create energy. My argument lies in the fact that none of them will be able to sustain the globalized world we currently live in, in which our population and need for energy is growing exponentially.
                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by Johaely (March 21, 2011 1:48 pm ET)
                                    3  
                                    That's why we need to focus on developing them! Oil is a finite resource and in its inception it was not viable.
                                    Report Abuse
                                    • Author by What Happens When The Oil Is Gone (March 21, 2011 2:02 pm ET)
                                      1 2
                                      You act like I am saying we shouldn't. All I am saying is that the life we have built through the discovery and use of fossil fuels will not be sustained by man made alternatives that cost more and supply less energy per unit.



                                      Report Abuse
                                      • Author by jonimacaroni1 (March 21, 2011 2:26 pm ET)
                                        1 1
                                        The life we have right now also won't be sustained by oil once it's gone, you idiot!

                                        We have to develop renewable resources like wind and solar, etc. We don't have an unlimited supply of oil.
                                        Report Abuse
                                        • Author by What Happens When The Oil Is Gone (March 21, 2011 2:42 pm ET)
                                          1 1
                                          I know that, but I have already accepted the fact that life is going to change drastically. You are the one that seems to be holding onto a wishful thought.

                                          Wind turbines and Solar panels are not going to stop that from happening. Life is going to revert back to a much more simplistic existence, one in which solar panels and wind turbines will not be needed.

                                          The sooner people accept that fact the transition will be much easier.

                                          You need to realize that human civilization stumbled upon a favorable situation that we exploited for as long as we could.

                                          It is natural law that nothing grows forever.
                                          Report Abuse
                            • Author by hypocritesRus (March 21, 2011 9:11 am ET)
                              1 4
                              johaely said: Oil is a finite resource while natural forces like solar, geothermal, wind and hydroelectric have existed since the begining of life and will exist even after its gone.

                              Wow, whoever is writing for you today sure made a blunderous statement. How are you going to take advantage of all those power producing examples you gave without having oil based products to make the materials needed to extract power from any of them? IE; solar panels, windmills, motors. Any of those made without using oil based materials? NO. All are made with that finite availability of oil. Once your oil is gone, so is the capabilities of making anything that can take advantage of solar, geothermal, wind and hydroelectric sources.

                              But, apparently, none of that matters anyway because many left-wingers have already said they will not stop using gas powered vehicles. They are hypocrites concerning climate change because they won't stop causing it even while they whine about it being caused by their use of gasoline.

                              Also, whoever is writing for you today can sure spell better than you. Do you share your sign-in information with all your friends and teachers and let them post in your name often?
                              Tell them if they want to make your posts seem more realistic, they should spell simple words wrong more often.
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by foghornleghorn (March 21, 2011 11:18 am ET)
                                3 1
                                More binary thinking. So I guess the solution to the problem is to get alternative energy sources online before oil runs out. Don't you think we should start now?
                                Report Abuse
                              • Author by jonimacaroni1 (March 21, 2011 11:26 am ET)
                                3 1
                                It is correct that right now, many things are made using oil or oil by-products.

                                That's just another reason why we should be using alternative fuel sources wherever possible, rather than drilling as much as we can as fast as we can now! Your argument falls flat in every possible way.
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by What Happens When The Oil Is Gone (March 21, 2011 12:18 pm ET)
                                  1 2
                                  Most alternative fuel sources are net energy losers and economically redundant. All of your arguments fall flat because you do not take into consideration the infinite growth our economy depends on to thrive.

                                  Hypothetically speaking, say US energy consumption grows at 1% per year and it currently takes 1,000,000 solar panels to supply enough energy for United States. This would mean that in 2080 it would require 2,000,0000 solar panels to supply the United States with enough energy.

                                  Now the problem with this is the fact that oil will be more expensive in 2080 therefore solar panels would be more expensive to create, unless we find another substance to make them with. Another problem however is that the area for the solar panels would have doubled, creating more environmental problems.
                                  Report Abuse
                        • Author by What Happens When The Oil Is Gone (March 20, 2011 6:13 pm ET)
                          1 6
                          The only problem with your example is that automobiles were always a viable solution to horse and buggy. So the transition, even though it didn't happen over night, made sense.

                          The solution the alternative energy crowd is putting forth is in essence a return to horse and buggy.

                          Why must liberals, when having a conversation with someone with an opposing view, always attack their intellect like it strengthens their argument?
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by foghornleghorn (March 20, 2011 8:01 pm ET)
                            6 1
                            Because your arguments are so vapid that you come off sounding like an idiot.

                            How do you know that alternative energy sources are viable or not? How do you know that a modern day Edison won't come along and make it viable in the near future.

                            The solution the alternative energy crowd is putting forth is in essence a return to horse and buggy.

                            Liar. Why do you insist on telling lies?
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by What Happens When The Oil Is Gone (March 20, 2011 9:46 pm ET)
                              1 4
                              Because they produce nothing more than electricity. That does not solve the other uses of fossil fuels.
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by globalRower (March 21, 2011 4:55 am ET)
                                3  
                                Fuels are a means of storing energy. Electricity can be effciently transformed from and to mechanical, thermal, and chemical energy. In short, electricity can fulfill all our energy needs.

                                Fossil fuels are used exclusively for energy storage. That is why they are described as fuels. Petroleum products are used for much more than energy, but 72% of petroleum use in the United States drive transportation.(1)

                                Now, imagine two scenarios: alternative fuels are developed for transportation, and all non-transportation fossil fuel use is replaced with other energy sources. In the first scenario, we suddenly have roughly four times the available petroleum reserves. In the second scenario we suddenly increase transportation energy reserves by almost 50%. Either scenario is advantageous.

                                As to cars immediately being viable, that's wrong. The Model T was revolutionary because it made a luxury item affordable. Luxury items are not viable for everyday use, and cars (especially the fine new ones to which the bulk of the United States is accustomed) continue to be luxury items in most of the world.

                                (1) see: http://www.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=oil_home#tab2
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by What Happens When The Oil Is Gone (March 21, 2011 12:41 pm ET)
                                    2
                                  First, alternative fuels are net energy losers. It requires 10 acres of corn to produce enough ethanol for one car for one year. Also it takes more energy to produce that corn than you get from burning it.

                                  Second, it takes decades to transform an energy infrastructure. We are not going to change everyone's vehicles or jet planes overnight.

                                  Third, the amount of electricity needed to fulfill all of our energy needs is probably more than double the amount we use now. The amount of surface area needed for those sources, such as solar panels and wind turbines, is astronomical, taking away land for future development and wildlife.
                                  Report Abuse
            • Author by kabniel (March 21, 2011 12:15 pm ET)
              2 1
              Do me a favor. STFU till you can at least pretend to make sense. I call out a LIE by someone and you jump to boycott all oil products? Why would I do that? Did you see me demand an end to all oil drilling. You brainwashed Limborg cretins just love the strawman argument because you are far too STUPID to come up with any legitimate arguments
              Report Abuse
              • Author by What Happens When The Oil Is Gone (March 21, 2011 12:45 pm ET)
                1 2
                How about you read the actual conversation stemming from that comment.

                At least the rest of the lefties on here can carry a conversation with real rebuttals, you on the other hand are too STUPID to create your own argument.

                Are you in high school?
                Report Abuse
        • Author by jbrantow (March 20, 2011 8:20 pm ET)
          2 1
          "Limbaugh: "Wind And Solar Aren't Capable of Producing Anything -- They're Just Dreams Of The Environmentalist Wackos." On his radio show, Rush Limbaugh stated:"

          Anymore BS you care to spew?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Badtime (March 20, 2011 9:27 pm ET)
          5 1
          Just some points of contention here.

          1. When you say "no one is against producing energy in what ever way it can be produced", please explain the stunting of the development and implementation of alternatives to coal and oil. Also, please explain the above articles that are obviously trying to dissuade the production of alternatives.

          2. Yes, it is people presenting their opinions, which is fine. The problem is that these people pass it off as news and present their fact-free side of the "debate". Again, all the evidence is right here on the page. But i guess its a bit TL;DR for you.

          3. Hate to crayola this in for you (again) but most of the country is surprisingly progressive and liberal, especially when you pull them out the closed information loop and give them pesky things like facts and options that aren't "us vs them".

          4. There is no "left wing media". There is Fox, and everyone who doesn't take the ultra-right point of view that Fox demands.

          5.. Lots of us also watched "Alf". Does that make it real too?
          Report Abuse
      • Author by big_O_Other7415 (March 20, 2011 2:52 pm ET)
        6 1
        It is not a matter of a thoughtful position. It is a matter of their being bought and paid for by big oil interests: the Saudis, the Koch Brothers, et al.

        The belief behind this genre of commentary is that they are appealing to EVERYONE'S true dream: of being able to do ANYTHING they want, anytime, and in super-excessive amounts: eat, sex, energy use -- all can be turned into 'excesses' that are in actuality waste. At one point, in our society, it was called conspicuous consumption, which indicated your wealth and power. But now excess is just another word for manufacturing waste.

        So if they are so keen on waste production, maybe they could consult a psychoanalyst to figure out why waste is such an absolute value for them?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by wookie (March 18, 2011 8:41 pm ET)
      15 1
      BOLLING: Here's Japan with an 8.9 magnitude earthquake and it survived -- not a death. You can't say that about some of the other things that the left wants to talk about. They want to talk about a wind turbine. Take a look at this. Oh!

      [...]

      BOLLING: All right, a wind turbine versus a beautiful hawk, innocent hawk spinning away in the sky -- wham! No more hawk. Even experts in the renewable energy point out that dozens, dozens of people have been killed by wind turbines, including one poor woman who parachuted into one. And workers have been killed falling off roofs while installing solar panels.


      Even the Fox zombies can't be stupid enough to fall for this, can they?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by ultrasanktpauli (March 18, 2011 10:39 pm ET)
        6 1
        ummmm...
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Unreality (March 18, 2011 10:56 pm ET)
        13 1
        "Even the Fox zombies can't be stupid enough to fall for this, can they?"

        If only that were true.

        These are the same people who think that attracting smart people to become teachers because teachers aren't critically important to the nation's future. That is indisputable evidence of stupid.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by progressivesrliars (March 19, 2011 12:11 pm ET)
        1 20
        wookie:Fall for what? So far, there have been no fatalities in regards to japan's nuclear power plants, that were manufactured the evil corporation known as General Electric, the same company that helps fund Media Matters, and owns Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, ED, etc.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mikehuck1976 (March 19, 2011 12:30 pm ET)
          18 1
          See! I told you liars was this stupid. Never underestimate his level of proud ignorance. Thanks for always setting the example of right-wing denial, liars.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by CoolSlaw (March 19, 2011 1:47 pm ET)
            18 1
            With a healthy dose of false choice-ism!

            I wasn't aware we had to drop all other forms of electrical generation immediately the moment we adopt a reasonable plan for developing renewable non polluting forms of energy,

            I'm glad we have right wingers to explain the folly of the crazy positions no one on the left ever took. Keep up the fight against those imaginary liberal stereotypes!
            Report Abuse
            • Author by progressivesrliars (March 19, 2011 4:37 pm ET)
              1 15
              CoolSlaw: No one says you have to drop anything, except you lefties who want to drop fossil fuels, etc. in exchange for solar and wind power. Like I have said on numerous occasions, you are free to develop what ever form of energy you can. No one is advocating that you not be allowed to do so. While you, and other lefties, are advocating for us not to utilize nuclear or fossil fuels, and have actively encouraged laws blocking their use. Tell me again why drilling in anwar is bad? Or extracting coal from federal lands?


              being flexible enough to allow companies to "adapt to new energy and environmental challenges";
              "encouraging competitive trade practices and international investment";
              and creating a stable regulatory environment for investors.

              Any national energy policy adopted by the federal government should allow increased development of energy resources on federal lands, urged a gathering of western governors and industry experts at a House Resources Committee hearing held March 7. They assured the Congressmen in attendance that new technologies allow such resource development to be done in an environmentally responsible way.
              Drilling in the 1.5-million-acre coastal plain of the 19-million-acre ANWR was one of the major topics of discussion at the March 7 hearing. Environmentalists oppose development of the site because, they say, drilling would hurt caribou, polar bears, other wildlife, and the landscape itself.

              Alaska Governor Tony Knowles disagreed, saying ANWR drilling would create thousands of jobs, lessen U.S. dependence on foreign oil, and reduce fuel prices. Drilling could be done with "special precautions" for the area's wildlife, he said.

              Knowles said practices at nearby Prudhoe Bay demonstrate the oil industry's ability to develop with minimal environmental impacts. They can use smaller-than-usual pads to drill diagonal wells that reach a broader area underground, he noted, and can confine their activity to the winter months, when equipment can move over ice slabs, which then melt in the summer and lessen the operation's "footprint."

              Wyoming Governor Jim Geringer stressed at the hearing the importance of finding energy solutions to continue upward economic trends. He said much of the federal lands in the West contain energy reserves, but Clinton-era land use decisions have impeded access, stymying efforts to reach those reserves.

              Federal agencies should more actively involve state governments in policy decisions, Geringer said, perhaps by granting them the rarely used "cooperating agency" status under the National Environmental Policy Act, which would put them on a more equal footing with the federal agencies.

              Oil and gas industry experts testified that federal policies restricting companies' access to public lands generally are based on past events and do not take into account new technologies.
              Reprinted with permission from E&E Publishing, LLC 122 C Street NW #722, Washington, DC. Phone 202/628-6500, or contact the group by email at pubs@eenews.net.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by foghornleghorn (March 19, 2011 4:47 pm ET)
                13 2
                you lefties who want to drop fossil fuels

                Lie.

                and other lefties, are advocating for us not to utilize nuclear or fossil fuels

                Lie.

                and have actively encouraged laws blocking their use.

                Lie.

                Why must you lie to make you point?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by progressivesrliars (March 19, 2011 4:51 pm ET)
                  2 15
                  foghornleghorn: Prove its a lie. Say you support nuclear power, the opening of anwar, the extraction of coal from federal lands. Say you support those actions.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by foghornleghorn (March 19, 2011 5:05 pm ET)
                    12 1
                    You first. You prove what you said was true. Back up your lies with facts and then maybe we can have a discussion.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by highlyunlikely (March 19, 2011 5:51 pm ET)
                    9 1
                    Prove its [sic] a lie.


                    And that's an ORDER.
                    Report Abuse
                      • Author by foghornleghorn (March 19, 2011 7:15 pm ET)
                        14 1
                        I'll take that as a no, you can't back up your assertions with facts. You see, liars who promote lies and can't back them up tend to run away and hide.

                        You're a liar. Make a note of it.
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by PurpleState (March 19, 2011 10:29 pm ET)
                        10 1
                        Wow. I'm impressed.

                        You must be an ostrich, because I've never seen a chicken run that fast.
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by kabniel (March 20, 2011 10:07 am ET)
                        6 1
                        ConservativesRmorons

                        We are ALL getting tired of your stupidity
                        Report Abuse
                  • Author by kabniel (March 20, 2011 10:06 am ET)
                    8 1
                    One of the most ignorant things ever said in the English language. When YOU make a claim it is YOUR obligation to be able to back it up. Not make a claim then demand someone else prove it to be untrue. If I said you were a child molester prove you are not how could you do that? This is a logical fallacy by definition. In fact in the formal language of rhetoric and debate it is known as an argument from ignorance so it is not suprising you would use it so much
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by xavier_ninnis (March 20, 2011 12:17 pm ET)
                      2 1
                      Bingo. (aka: argumentum ad ignorantiam)

                      Sorry,
                      A fellow debate geek (retired)
                      :)
                      Report Abuse
                • Author by hypocritesRus (March 20, 2011 2:32 pm ET)
                  1 7
                  foghornleghorn said: you lefties who want to drop fossil fuels
                  Lie.

                  How are you left-wingers going to control or even slow down ANY global warming (oops, I mean climate change) if you continue using fossil fuels? Isn't that a bit hypocritical of you to demand others restrict their usage of fossil fuels while you deny you need to?

                  You listed several "lie" statements. But you demand someone else prove they are NOT lies. That makes perfect sense. You call him a liar but feel no need to show why what he says is a lie. Is that the usual left-winger procedure?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by foghornleghorn (March 20, 2011 2:52 pm ET)
                    5 1
                    Binary thinking is your problem. Nobody is advocating for dropping fossil fuels.

                    Again, you find hypocrisy where none exists.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by hypocritesRus (March 20, 2011 3:04 pm ET)
                      1 7
                      I see. So the fearmongering from the left concerning climate change is just fearmongering? Ok, I fully understand you position on climate change now. Thanks for clearing that up.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by foghornleghorn (March 20, 2011 3:12 pm ET)
                        5 1
                        There is no fearmongering from the left concerning climate change.

                        You just think stating facts is fearmongering. That's because you're easily scared. I suggest growing some backbone.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by hypocritesRus (March 20, 2011 3:15 pm ET)
                          1 7
                          foghornleghorn said: I suggest growing some backbone.

                          I could easily say the exact same thing concerning the continual whines about right-wing media personalities coming from left-wingers.

                          You're a classic today. Have you had a couple adult beverages already?
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by foghornleghorn (March 20, 2011 3:19 pm ET)
                            8 1
                            Liberals "whine" about right-wing media because:

                            1) They lie.

                            2) Their listeners believe the lies.

                            3) Their listeners vote based on the lies to the detriment of the country.

                            Understand?
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by hypocritesRus (March 20, 2011 3:25 pm ET)
                              1 7
                              Like YOU said and I agreed with: you should "grow some backbone" also. What part of that did you NOT understand?

                              They lie ... wahhh
                              Their listeners believe the lies ... wahh
                              Their listeners vote ... wahh
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by foghornleghorn (March 20, 2011 3:56 pm ET)
                                8 1
                                It's not whining. It's the truth. Why would poor/middle class people vote for candidates that do not have their best interest at heart?

                                Stating the truth is NOT whining. Make a note of it.
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by hypocritesRus (March 20, 2011 6:28 pm ET)
                                  1 7
                                  foghornleghorn said: Why would poor/middle class people vote for candidates that do not have their best interest at heart?

                                  Because that candidate promised to pay them $250 each if he won the election. BTW what did you spend your 'stimulus check' on?
                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by Johaely (March 20, 2011 8:05 pm ET)
                                    6 1
                                    I don't remember Obama campaigning on that and i actually looked at Obam's real policies and not BS like Jermeiah Wright, Bill Ayers or all the other trite $#!T presented in the media as "issues".
                                    Report Abuse
                                    • Author by hypocritesRus (March 20, 2011 8:55 pm ET)
                                      1 5
                                      Read the link, how do you think he got elected?
                                      Report Abuse
                                      • Author by Johaely (March 20, 2011 9:00 pm ET)
                                        4  
                                        There are many reasons he got elected. This may (and that's a big may) have been one of those.
                                        Report Abuse
                                        • Author by foghornleghorn (March 20, 2011 9:20 pm ET)
                                          7 1
                                          For anyone to think that Obama won the election because he promised them a $250 check is a liar.

                                          Obama won the election because people hated Bush, wanted a change, like Obama's message, and wouldn't/couldn't vote for McGrampy and Bible Spice.
                                          Report Abuse
                                          • Author by Johaely (March 20, 2011 9:33 pm ET)
                                            5 1
                                            I never even heard of that check thing until traveller started bringing it up, first without mentioning names thinking that people are up to date in the latest talking points like him.
                                            Report Abuse
                                            • Author by HRN (March 20, 2011 11:41 pm ET)
                                              3 1
                                              I'd never heard of it either......
                                              I wonder if Traveller is feeling guilty now for cashing that $250.00 check?
                                              Report Abuse
                                              • Author by hypocritesRus (March 21, 2011 12:19 am ET)
                                                1 4
                                                No guilt here. I needed the money. But I got it without sacrificing my principles.
                                                Report Abuse
                                                • Author by Johaely (March 21, 2011 1:54 pm ET)
                                                  1 1
                                                  By accepting and cashing in the money you compromised your principles.
                                                  Report Abuse
                                              • Author by jaguarundi (March 21, 2011 2:15 am ET)
                                                5 1
                                                Never heard of the check either.
                                                Where was this advertised? Please give links on Obama's website.
                                                Report Abuse
                                                • Author by hypocritesRus (March 21, 2011 9:18 am ET)
                                                  1 4
                                                  I already gave a link. If you're an American, you already spent your money too. Unless you were too rich to get a check. But, that would make you an evil republican.
                                                  Report Abuse
                                                  • Author by foghornleghorn (March 21, 2011 11:12 am ET)
                                                    3 1
                                                    In case you missed it, the wealthy got tax DISCOUNTS that dwarf your $250 outrage.
                                                    Report Abuse
                                                  • Author by jonimacaroni1 (March 21, 2011 11:34 am ET)
                                                    4 1
                                                    People on Social Security got $250 (twice, actually) because the President and Congress wanted to help senior citizens who weren't going to get a COLA increase. It was stimulative, but it wasn't a campaign promise and it wasn't something that got him votes.

                                                    As usual, you're a liar who's lying.
                                                    Report Abuse
                            • Author by jasperjo (March 21, 2011 4:37 am ET)
                                 
                              I am more disturbed by the raging hatred of righties than what you perceive as whining liberal. Truth be told if we as a country would stop idolizing Thomas Edison the idiot of Menlo Park and accept that Nikola Tesla not only had the technologies we so desperately need he had the heart and aspiration of who I consider the
                              Greatest American. He loved this country and deeply
                              cared about the well being of all mankind. I guess because he was not greedy and was educated and intelligenty brilliant the mony mongers find no interest in him.
                              Report Abuse
              • Author by jjamele2880 (March 20, 2011 8:02 am ET)
                8 1
                you are free to develop what ever form of energy you can. No one is advocating that you not be allowed to do so.

                Am I free to collect countless billions in subsidies to make me competitive while creating my infrastructure and catching up to Big Oil and the Nuclear Power Industry?

                Funny how the "free market" always includes massive amounts of tax money being shoveled into the maw of the "competitive" oil and nuke industries, isn't it? What an idiot you are.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by kabniel (March 20, 2011 10:02 am ET)
                4 1
                ConservativesRmorons

                You are a LIAR. A particularly stupid and pathetic LIAR. It really is just that simple
                Report Abuse
              • Author by Tony Redgrave (March 20, 2011 1:29 pm ET)
                3  
                There is not enough oil in ANWR to have any effect on gas prices and there is no infrastructure in place to get the oil from Alaska to the lower 48. The little bit of oil there is not worth the effort to get it.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by CoolSlaw (March 20, 2011 5:26 pm ET)
                6 1
                CoolSlaw: No one says you have to drop anything, except you lefties who want to drop fossil fuels, etc. in exchange for solar and wind power.


                I stopped reading your inane reply after that line. Why? because I JUST GOT DONE telling you the opposite. As a "lefty", the whole point of my reply was that I don't want to "drop fossil fuels". I don't know any "lefties" that want to "drop fossil fuels".

                That's just being totally dishonest. Then you forge ahead with your argument based on the words you put in my mouth.

                I can't have a debate with you if you are going to ignore or lie about what I wrote.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by What Happens When The Oil Is Gone (March 20, 2011 1:59 pm ET)
              1 6
              Reasonable plan for developing renewable non polluting forms?

              Lets see. They are much more expensive, and produce no where near the same amount of energy. Explain how that is reasonable.

              Have you ever heard of the term net energy? It is a pretty important concept when evaluating energy sources.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by CoolSlaw (March 20, 2011 5:32 pm ET)
                6 1
                Again with the lack of imagination and historical context.

                How efficient and safe were those oil derricks in the old west compared to the modern ones (which still do have their risks)? How efficient and readily available was gasoline for the first Model-T as it rolled of the line? How much more fuel efficient and how readily available is gasoline for a car manufactured in 2011?

                This is a bogus argument based on a rigid and static world. We live in a flexible and dynamic world where new technologies change the way things are done all the time.

                Apparently only the right wingers mind is so limited and inflexible that it cannot imagine a world where we start moving toward a more modern and sustainable energy policy.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by The_Cat (March 20, 2011 8:28 pm ET)
                  2 1
                  How efficient and readily available was gasoline for the first Model-T as it rolled of the line? How much more fuel efficient and how readily available is gasoline for a car manufactured in 2011?


                  Actually, the Model T got about 25 mpg, and had about 20 horsepower. We've come a long ways since then, but mostly in the direction of consumption and waste sadly.
                  Report Abuse
          • Author by progressivesrliars (March 19, 2011 4:24 pm ET)
            1 13
            mikehuck1976: my sarcasm went right over your head, I see.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by mary59 (March 19, 2011 11:50 pm ET)
              8 1
              Nope. Your attempt at sarcasm went right back into your behind.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by hypocritesRus (March 21, 2011 9:21 am ET)
                1 3
                That was really un-called for. Do you always treat people with that kind of language? Even the people you hate (but don't know)?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by jonimacaroni1 (March 21, 2011 11:36 am ET)
                  5 1
                  Given your behavior here, it was perfectly appropriate and well-deserved.
                  Report Abuse
      • Author by mikehuck1976 (March 19, 2011 12:29 pm ET)
        4 1
        liars is, I guarantee it.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by beDecent (March 19, 2011 1:55 pm ET)
        6 1
        I'm surprised he didn't go with a bald eagle here versus a "beautiful hawk".
        Report Abuse
    • Author by nothingtoseehere (March 18, 2011 11:55 pm ET)
      15 2
      Naysayers are vital to progress, because ultimately naysayers take us forward. As history shows, naysayers invented the lightbulb, the Model T, the great industries, they got us to the moon and built Microsoft, Apple, and Google. Naysayers inspire imagination, creativity and innovation. These people are really showing they have the best interest of the populace at heart...


      (hehehehe couldn't finish with a straight face)
      Report Abuse
      • Author by progressivesrliars (March 19, 2011 12:13 pm ET)
        2 20
        nothingtoseehere: is anyone stopping you or anyone else from creating your own solar panel plant? Or creating your own wind farm? No one has the slightest problem with you doing whatever you want, just don't ask the taxpayers to subsidies your endeavors.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mikehuck1976 (March 19, 2011 12:31 pm ET)
          17 2
          is anyone stopping you or anyone else from creating your own solar panel plant? Or creating your own wind farm? - liars

          Do you really think you are making an argument here, liars? You always get to the point where you just make us all feel sorry for you.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by beDecent (March 19, 2011 1:57 pm ET)
          9 1
          Successful American industries started with an idea, and was brought to life by the taxpayers. You'll pay for people to die at war, but not advancing our economy? Dumb.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by progressivesrliars (March 19, 2011 2:56 pm ET)
            3 18
            beDecent: Your wrong. Very few companies where brought to life by the taxpayers, except that those who brought these ideas to life paid taxes. And you know what, I am really getting tired of you lefties talking about paying for others to die in war, but not advancing the economy, as if giving taxes to the government actually has something to do with advancing the economy, while failing to acknowledge that paying for the military actually allows the people of this country to exercise our freedom to advance our economy. You sir, are an idiot, with idiotic beliefs regarding how this system of governance and economics actually works.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by beDecent (March 19, 2011 3:19 pm ET)
              10 2
              Successful American industries, such as the automobile and dot-com industries. Hell, even tobacco companies receive tax breaks!

              "...while failing to acknowledge that paying for the military actually allows the people of this country to exercise our freedom to advance our economy." That's definitely why we engaged in two wars at the same time this past decade, right? Fighting for our freedoms (hey, I thought we were spreading democracy on the other side of the world) to advance our economy? Declaring two simultaneous wars is great for the economy! That's a hoot. We'll always be able to afford the right-wing agenda, but any money spent by the left is communistic, or something.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by progressivesrliars (March 19, 2011 4:47 pm ET)
                2 12
                beDecent: What two wars? Are you referring to the battles and the battleground we fight on, as separate wars? How stupid are you? Even the UN has stated that we are fighting against an enemy that has declared war on us. You are just plain stupid to understand that simple concept, I guess. Tell me, when we fought in France, Italy, North Africa, the Philippines, China, etc, during the period 1941 thru 1945, where we fighting multiply wars? You really are stupid.

                I never said this:Declaring two simultaneous wars is great for the economy!
                Why do you say I did? You are a liar. You use the same tactics as your leader, david brock, the admitted liar uses. Invent words, put them in other peoples mouth, than argue about the words you say others espouse. Total dishonesty.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Johaely (March 19, 2011 5:42 pm ET)
                  8 1
                  Tell me, when we fought in France, Italy, North Africa, the Philippines, China, etc, during the period 1941 thru 1945, where we fighting multiply wars


                  That was just one war. You know WW2?

                  You really are stupid.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by progressivesrliars (March 19, 2011 6:24 pm ET)
                    1 12
                    Johaely ; Just as today we are in a global war with the jihadist. It is not different wars we are fighting today, as you lefties would have us believe. That was my point, which obviously went right over your head.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Johaely (March 19, 2011 8:08 pm ET)
                      9 1
                      Its very much different. First of all, there is no such people (or more accuaretly, person) as "the jihadist". Second of all, the "war on terrorism" is a vague war. There is no exact goal to it. In WW2 there was a goal, fight with the allied power to stop Hitler and Nazi Germany. The same caanot be said about the war on terrorism. We are fighting against an abstract concept.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Metanoia (March 19, 2011 8:24 pm ET)
                        1 11
                        Nothing "abstract" about the goals of the jihadis or Islamofascists, if you prefer. Their goals are as "concrete" as their methods.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Johaely (March 19, 2011 8:40 pm ET)
                          6 1
                          Once again, there is no such thing as "islamofacists" or "jihadis". Al Qaeda on the other hand, is ONE of thousands of terrorist groups around the world. The war is on terrorism and even if we use the definiton of war on islamic terrorism, we have completley ignored any other group and solely focus on the ones that attack america.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by Metanoia (March 19, 2011 8:50 pm ET)
                            1 9
                            "Once again, there is no such thing as "islamofacists" or "jihadis"."

                            You are not being serious are you?

                            "we have completley ignored any other group and solely focus on the ones that attack america."

                            I think it would be a good place to start, don't you?
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by Johaely (March 19, 2011 9:05 pm ET)
                              7 1
                              "Jihadis" and "Islamofascists" are not a group of people. They are just words based on ignorance and fear and that only spread the same.

                              I think it would be a good place to start, don't you?


                              There are many terrorists groups within our shore, yet we haven't gone after them with the same fervor as we did with Al Qaeda (before we got distracted with Iraq) nor do we help countries with their own terrorism problems. This has never been a war on terrorism.
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by Metanoia (March 19, 2011 10:15 pm ET)
                                1 7
                                "Jihadis" and "Islamofascists" are not a group of people. They are just words based on ignorance and fear and that only spread the same."

                                If you fight with reality Johaely, you will eventually lose. It is a recognized fact that there are Jihadis in the world, the specific term is Salafist Jihadism and they believe in the use of violence in achieving their political aims. Al Qaeda is one group, of quite a few that follow this ideology.

                                "There are many terrorists groups within our shore, yet we haven't gone after them with the same fervor as we did with Al Qaeda"

                                I believe the FBI has done a pretty good job of identifying threats from these other sources, but it is a fact that Al Qaeda is a bigger threat than any other of these groups.

                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by Johaely (March 19, 2011 11:27 pm ET)
                                  6 1
                                  But of the idiots that go throwing that word around don't know that and only use it the same way people use communist or nazi.

                                  Al Qaeda is as big of a threat as any other terrorist group inside America if not less. We have divested far too much time and resources on a war that we aren't even focusing on. The war on terrorism is just another war on drugs : a wrongheaded attempt at solving an issue without addressing it.
                                  Report Abuse
                        • Author by jonimacaroni1 (March 19, 2011 10:20 pm ET)
                          6 1
                          Remember, Metanoia is "right ON" simply using another screen name.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by Metanoia (March 19, 2011 10:25 pm ET)
                            1 7
                            And you are definitely more than a couple of macaroni short of a salad.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by jonimacaroni1 (March 20, 2011 2:04 pm ET)
                              3 1
                              I fully grasp that you'd like it better if you could use multiple screen names with impunity. The fact that you think that dishonestly shows us that it's you who is lacking in both brainpower and morality.
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by Metanoia (March 20, 2011 11:18 pm ET)
                                1 3
                                You got me Macaloony. I thought I could fool you but I can't. You are right, I am RIGHT ON!!! in oh, so many ways.
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by jonimacaroni1 (March 21, 2011 11:37 am ET)
                                  1 1
                                  I fully grasp that you'd like it better if you could use multiple screen names with impunity. The fact that you think that dishonestly shows us that it's you who is lacking in both brainpower and morality.
                                  Report Abuse
                • Author by beDecent (March 19, 2011 6:07 pm ET)
                  8 1
                  You should know that calling me stupid a bunch of times and an idiot makes me laugh. It shows your ignorance if you can't make a point without resorting to schoolyard tactics.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by yoiksaway (March 21, 2011 2:29 am ET)
                  3 1
                  "Invent words, put them in other peoples mouth, than argue about the words you say others espouse. Total dishonesty."--progressivesrliars

                  I like that. So when you faked the David Brock quote to impugn him, you were guilty of that.

                  Folks, this is the closest progessivesrliars will come to confessing dishonesty on this one.
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by mikehuck1976 (March 19, 2011 4:02 pm ET)
              5 1
              "as if giving taxes to the government actually has something to do with advancing the economy, while failing to acknowledge that paying for the military actually allows the people of this country to exercise our freedom to advance our economy" - liars

              Wow. What a sad, pitiful, fool. He sees no connection between the military and taxpayers. What a sad existence.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by Boswell (March 19, 2011 5:39 pm ET)
              9 1
              railroads? major "land grants" by the government (taxpayer dollars IOW).
              oil companies? STILL receiving major subsidies and tax breaks from who? why the taxpayers!

              in fact ANY company that gets a tax break is stealing from the rest of the taxpayers.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by progressivesrliars (March 19, 2011 6:32 pm ET)
                1 11
                Boswell: You obviously have a problem understanding the difference between taking something from someone and giving it to someone else, to do something, and not taking something from someone, so that self same someone can do something you want them to do.
                How is the government not taking as much as you want them to take, from me, equate to me stealing from you?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by foghornleghorn (March 19, 2011 7:17 pm ET)
                  11 1
                  You obviously have a problem understanding the difference between taking something from someone and giving it to someone else, to do something, and not taking something from someone, so that self same someone can do something you want them to do

                  progressiveliars is Donald Rumsfeld!!!!
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by progressivesrliars (March 19, 2011 7:55 pm ET)
                    2 10
                    foghornleghorn: Is a cartoon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by CoolSlaw (March 20, 2011 5:46 pm ET)
                      8 1
                      And a funny one at that!

                      Seriously though, a great point was brought up here that oftentimes gets lost in the heated rhetoric of the absolutist right.

                      Major industries have received tax breaks, tax incentives, subsidies, and grants for a long time and still do so today. This is neither "good" or "bad" but can be taken and evaluated on a case by case basis. Some of this money goes to stabilize markets (banks for example), some to promote research and new technologies (pharma for example), some to draw new players into an industry(dot.com, cellular providers), and others to support key integral markets to maintain long term sustainability (farm/oil subsidies).

                      Right wingers are very good at their selective outrage, and they tend to ignore these "socialist giveaways" if they support an industry that pads the campaign coffers of republicans.
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by yoiksaway (March 21, 2011 2:44 am ET)
                        1
                      Progressivesrliars, are you Irongoat?
                      Report Abuse
        • Author by nothingtoseehere (March 19, 2011 2:49 pm ET)
          9 1
          @ progressivesrliars:

          1. Your argument is an attempt at misdirection. This article doesn't discuss taxpayers paying for new technologies. Rather, it lists a whole lot of people (I won't call them conservatives because I know plenty of true conservatives who are intelligent and understand the need for progress) who are using FUD tactics to discredit renewable energy technology. And I was sarcastically noting that this approach does nothing to benefit or advance our society.

          2. Do you have any idea what it takes to develop large-scale new technologies these days? The internet via which we are communicating wouldn't exist without government funded research. Most of our current medicines wouldn't either. Also things like computers, color TVs, our understanding of physics and the universe, biology, etc. etc. etc. I might have issues with some of the research the government funds (missile defense for example, a 40 year old boondoggle) but I try to not be so egocentric that I dismiss the possibility of people much smarter than me having a very good reason for pursuing this research.

          3. Ultimately, it boils down to culture and direction. What kind of a country/society do we want to live in? One that nurtures innovation and thought leadership? Or one that is complacent, unaware, and looks to others to define the future? This country had an amazing spurt of innovation in the last century, in large part because our leaders defined the culture. Scientists, engineers, etc. from all over the world wanted to come to study and conduct research at American universities because that was the most cutting edge place to be. That research is funded by a mix of mainly government and some private sponsorship, but it could not exist without the government dollars. But when it comes to renewables, the US has fallen behind to others countries that recognize the importance of this technology to our future.

          The reality is that we elect our leaders and those leaders set the tone, attitude, and direction for this collective we call a country. When those leaders inspire a culture of innovation, we progress. When those leaders promote complacency and cynicism, we stagnate. Hence my sarcasm about the naysayers.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by progressivesrliars (March 19, 2011 3:03 pm ET)
            1 13
            nothingtoseehere: Your right. The article doesn't discuss taxpayers paying for new tech. That is why the article is dishonest. The people being demonized by the article are discussing taxpayer subsidies for the various tech. That is at the root of the discussion. Media Matters conventionally leaves that part out. Again, the whole article is dishonestly framed.

            I do have an idea. The market or the government, or a mix of both, is the debate. Not opposition to green energy as is being framed, by media matters and the left.

            Your right. it boils down to letting the market dictate or the government dictating. I prefer the free market. Some prefer big government.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by nothingtoseehere (March 19, 2011 4:04 pm ET)
              9 1
              @ progressivesrliars:

              I appreciate the civility :)

              I haven't had time to research if there are omissions in this article, so I'll take you at your word.

              However, even if "taxpayer subsidies for the various tech" is the root issue, on a practical level there is not much issue there. Try telling the largest corporations in the market that the government won't fund research anymore. Their lobbyists would go into overdrive. That's because the government absorbs the risk of funding research in the hopes that ultimately the people will benefit. The corporations develop a product based on the research and take it to market, thereby having a reason to pay their employees and ultimately make a profit. And the consumer base gets a product that (hopefully) improves their lives. Corporations/the market simply can not afford to pay for this research themselves because either the return is not immediately apparent or the scope is just too big.

              There's a big difference between the government 'dictating' and the government recognizing and supporting valuable new initiatives that will ultimately benefit both 'the market' and citizens.

              As a side-note, I am sincerely fascinated by the "market drives all" mindset. Don't want to presume that's your belief system, so I'll just ask: do you think this country would be better off if everything was run by the market with zero government involvement?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by foghornleghorn (March 19, 2011 4:50 pm ET)
                11 1
                progliar would be against the Panama Canal, the interstate highway system, NASA, the Hoover Dam, and any other "socialist, government-funded" project.

                Why does he hate America so much?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by progressivesrliars (March 19, 2011 5:37 pm ET)
                  2 11
                  foghornleghorn: How trite.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Boswell (March 19, 2011 5:45 pm ET)
                    10 1
                    and yet you cannot refute (or refudiate if you are as illiterate as your hero) and simply insult.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by highlyunlikely (March 19, 2011 5:57 pm ET)
                      6 1
                      And I love the "your"s instead of "you're"s. I think it may be intentional.
                      Report Abuse
              • Author by progressivesrliars (March 19, 2011 5:26 pm ET)
                2 10
                nothingtoseehere: (I appreciate the civility :)) As do I.

                Look, I really don't disagree with what you wrote above. Up to a point. The government, in a way subsidizes research done by energy companies, via tax breaks. Nothing wrong with that. You say companies cannot afford to pay for this research themselves, which is not really true. The subsidies these companies get are in the form of tax breaks, not from taxes collected from others. So, it really is money the company already has, it's just that the government says if you use some of your own money for research, we will give you a break on what we take from you. That is not the same as redistribution of tax funds, which is what is being suggested we do regarding wind and solar energy. The left frames the debate as your either for wind and solar, or you against wind and solar, when really it has nothing to do with for or against, it's who pays for it. In a free market system, if you build a "better mousetrap", you will succeed, if you don't, you won't. It's not the governments role to prop you up. That's the real debate.
                And whenever the government gets involved, the more they tend to dictate, as oppose to just supporting. That's the danger of government involvement. They are the big gorilla in the room, so to speak.

                As to your side note: The free market mindset does not believe that there should be ZERO government involvement. So, no, I don't believe the country would be better off run by the market with zero government involvement.

                So, I answered you question, now answer mine: I am sincerely fascinated by the "government drives all" mindset, do you believe we would be better off if the government run everything, with zero market involvement?

                Bear in mind, this country was founded on the idea that power would be vested in the states, not the feds. After all, it was the states that defined the power of the feds, to begin with. They chose to retain most of the governmental power themselves. It's just in recent times, the feds have been trying to take more and more of the power from the states. The states are now starting to kick back.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by foghornleghorn (March 19, 2011 5:42 pm ET)
                  9 1
                  That is not the same as redistribution of tax funds,

                  Yes, it is.

                  Why are all your "opinions" based on lies?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by progressivesrliars (March 19, 2011 6:09 pm ET)
                    1 10
                    foghornleghorn: In economics, redistribution is the transfer of income, wealth or property from some individuals to others.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by foghornleghorn (March 19, 2011 7:18 pm ET)
                      8 2
                      Your rebuttal in the form of a definition does not rebut what I said.

                      Care to try again?
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by kabniel (March 20, 2011 10:13 am ET)
                      5 1
                      SSSKKKKWWWAAAAAKKKK redistribution of wealth SSSKKKKWWWAAAAKKKKK

                      Which happens all the time in this economy MOSTLY UPWARDS. GOD but you are so brainwashed and so stupid I dont know how you manage to breathe
                      Report Abuse
                • Author by Johaely (March 19, 2011 5:47 pm ET)
                  10 1
                  Bear in mind, this country was founded on the idea that power would be vested in the states, not the feds. After all, it was the states that defined the power of the feds, to begin with. They chose to retain most of the governmental power themselves. It's just in recent times, the feds have been trying to take more and more of the power from the states. The states are now starting to kick back.


                  Yes and then we abandoned that idea because the country was in complete disorder. And its completely ironinc that the states that are "starting to kick bakc" the most are Southern states, states thta would not have even existed without government involvement.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by progressivesrliars (March 19, 2011 6:01 pm ET)
                    1 10
                    Johaely: Who abandoned that idea? And when? And what do you mean the country was in complete disorder? And last I heard, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Illinois are not southern states, though, southern states are kicking back to. You do know, that except for the original 13 states, no other state would have existed without government involvement? So, I don't quite get your point in bringing it up.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by foghornleghorn (March 19, 2011 6:05 pm ET)
                      9 1
                      Your knowledge of history is severly lacking. My recommendation - read a history book. Or two.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by progressivesrliars (March 19, 2011 6:22 pm ET)
                        1 10
                        foghornleghorn : I see. You have only read two history books. No wonder your lack depth.
                        Report Abuse
                    • Author by Johaely (March 19, 2011 6:07 pm ET)
                      8 1
                      Progs i want to ask you something. Was the constitution in existance when the country was founded, as in, was the constitution the first governing document of the country?
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by progressivesrliars (March 19, 2011 6:11 pm ET)
                        1 10
                        Johaely: Do you always answer question with questions? Please respond to my questions, before asking your own. That is called respect.
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by progressivesrliars (March 19, 2011 6:13 pm ET)
                        1 10
                        Just this once, I will answer. I expect the same courtesy. the answer is NO.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by progressivesrliars (March 19, 2011 7:52 pm ET)
                          1 9
                          Johaely: I see you refuse to man up. Why is that?
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by Johaely (March 19, 2011 8:04 pm ET)
                            9 1
                            Because i was not here. I have stuff to do, you know.

                            But there was a reason i asked you that. We abandoned the idea of state supremacy when we abbadoned the articles of confederation. And all those things (no other states outside the 13th colonies would have existed without government involvement) but southern states seem to always be forgetting that with all their "states rights" crap.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by progressivesrliars (March 20, 2011 12:17 pm ET)
                              1 5
                              Johaely: No we didn't. The states purposefully limited the power of the feds. What you call abandoned, was really a modification and compromise between the states.
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by foghornleghorn (March 20, 2011 2:54 pm ET)
                                5 1
                                The states purposefully limited the power of the feds

                                Looks like you failed both history and civics. Time for a refresher course.
                                Report Abuse
                              • Author by xavier_ninnis (March 20, 2011 3:56 pm ET)
                                4  
                                Sorry to play the pedant, but I'm really trying (though I'll no doubt be as effective as King Canute at the seashore) to stop "purposefully" from losing its meaning and becoming merely a synonym for "purposely", or worse, supplanting it entirely.
                                To do something purposely is to do it deliberately or on purpose: Please don't move those books, I put them there purposely.
                                While to do something purposefully is to do it with determination: "Right you naughty children, here I come!" he said, and strode purposefully into their room.

                                Purposefully is not somehow "stronger" than purposely, and it most definitely does NOT mean, as you seem to think, "something done with an ulterior or hidden motive".
                                Report Abuse
                          • Author by highlyunlikely (March 20, 2011 12:06 am ET)
                            5 1
                            Objection: question assumes facts not in evidence.
                            Report Abuse
                    • Author by big_O_Other7415 (March 20, 2011 2:54 pm ET)
                      2 1
                      Ever hear of the replacement of the Articles of Confederation by what is now known as the United States Constitution, which says that the federal government is to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare???
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by foghornleghorn (March 20, 2011 4:10 pm ET)
                        3 1
                        I guess progliars hasn't heard of the Supremecy Clause.
                        Report Abuse
                • Author by nothingtoseehere (March 19, 2011 10:52 pm ET)
                  7 1
                  Just had an 'a-ha' moment and saw where we have a disconnect. But first, I'll answer your question:

                  So, I answered you question, now answer mine: I am sincerely fascinated by the "government drives all" mindset, do you believe we would be better off if the government run everything, with zero market involvement?


                  Not at all. I am far from being an absolutist on just about anything. In fact, I'm an entrepreneur and own a small company myself, which happens to be incorporated, so I could be called a corporatist. And as such, I operate within the free market. I'm thankful my company is small, because for all the issues that brings, it allows us to be nimble and adapt quickly to market changes.

                  I am also a strong believer in individual empowerment and decentralized grassroots movements. I think the greater arc of history has us moving away from top-down hierarchies to societies capable of decentralized collective action. Current events in north Africa are great examples of this, but I digress...

                  Anyway, back to the topic: individuals innovate, but this innovation doesn't happen in a vacuum. You said
                  The government, in a way subsidizes research done by energy companies, via tax breaks.
                  This is not accurate, or at least far from the whole story. The government provides more than tax breaks, it pumps tons of cash into research.

                  Just look at the medical field: the government provides huge grants to universities to do medical research. Once a discovery is made, a corporation takes the research, tests appropriate dosages (for example), patents the finding, and brings the medicine to market. The bulk of medicines we use were developed via direct government funding, even though the government sees no profit from the results. In fact, this is one of the biggest arguments against the high price of medicines: big pharma profits from the sales of medicines developed not by them, but by us the taxpayer. This type of research funding happens in physics, biology, engineering, and just about every other field.

                  And it's not just funds to universities. Have you heard of the SBIR program? I believe it was put in place by Ronald Reagan. Anyway, the program provides grants to for-profit companies to develop products which benefit the greater good. The government pays for all the r&d and evaluation studies. Once the findings are approved, the company brings the product to market and makes all the profit. This program was put in place to move the r&d to the commercial sector. But it also exists because there are about 0 private investors that would put money into these endeavors.

                  So in answer to your question: no, I don't believe we would be better off if the government ran everything. But it doesn't run everything. It provides the capital for researchers to do what they do. The reality is: large-scale cutting edge research in just about every field you can name is happening on the government dime. And corporations benefit from this as much as (or maybe more than) citizens.

                  Wow I'm long-winded, and I could probably keep going for 10 more paragraphs. Apologies, I was never good at sound bite answers.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by progressivesrliars (March 20, 2011 6:29 pm ET)
                    1 5
                    nothingtoseehere: Good Post. I don't have the time right now to really address and discuss your post, but I say that I find nothing dishonest about it, which is refreshing coming from someone who posts on this site. I will say that I didn't pose the question as if I thought that you felt the government is the sole answer to everything. I posed it as a counter to corporations running everything. Neither is acceptable. A balance is. A lot of people on this site seem to believe it is either/or. You don't want the government doing certain things, translate to some on this site as wanting the corp. to it all. That's why I make the comments I do. Either position is asinine, in my opinion. We do need a mix of private and government, for the free market to succeed. Unfortunately, most on this site don't seem to see it that way. Anyway, gotta go. Hope to dialogue with you again.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by jaguarundi (March 21, 2011 2:44 am ET)
                      3 1
                      "Neither is acceptable. A balance is. A lot of people on this site seem to believe it is either/or."

                      YOU deal primarily in absolutes much more than all the people you disagree with here. "Lefties do this and do that" as if we are all a monolithic block of people. We're all against nuclear, and oil and . . . . blah blah blah.
                      YOU'RE THE ONE WHO IS ALWAYS PERSONALLY BUILDING THE STRAWMAN. You also commit so many logic fallacies and flaws, I find it pointless to get involved with you. Your particular favorites are: Straw man, Ad Hominem, Red Herring and False Dilemma.
                      Report Abuse
                • Author by CoolSlaw (March 20, 2011 5:56 pm ET)
                  2 1
                  The government, in a way subsidizes research done by energy companies, via tax breaks. Nothing wrong with that.


                  Not always. Oftentimes these are research grants, subsidies, contracts, etc.

                  This is not a simple either/or issue. Nothingtoseehere's post is a nice summation of the complexity and cuts to the heart of the matter. Other nations are funding and implementing these renewable energy solutions right now. We are falling behind the curve. I'd rather live in the world envisioned by Presidents like Eisenhower, Kennedy, Clinton, and dare I even say Reagan. These presidents believed in America taking the reigns and being a world leader, not a follower. I wish i could say the same for President Obama, but he seems too worried that the anti-progress right will think ill of him if he tries to act with any kind of national vision (like it matters what he does, they'll attack him regardless), and so we remain in a cultural stasis between the irrational right and the acquiescent left.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by progressivesrliars (March 20, 2011 6:37 pm ET)
                    1 4
                    CoolSlaw: Point taken. It's just that the proponents of certain technologies have another agenda, which has nothing to do with us being at the forefront of the development of "new energy". Depending on who one speaks of determines the nature of their agenda, but the agenda is still not what is being touted, but is disguised within the frame work of "renewable energy". Just because someone says they are doing something for a reason, doesn't mean they are telling the truth. And their are a lot of bulls**ters out their touting environmental nonsense, so that they can profit off of other peoples hysteria. Gotta go, but I felt you did deserve a response. I wish I actually had more time to better formulate what I am saying, but I think you get my drift.
                    Report Abuse
        • Author by wookie (March 19, 2011 2:53 pm ET)
          5 1
          After all, they are tapped out after decades of oil and coal subsidies...
          Report Abuse
        • Author by chuckie (March 19, 2011 5:19 pm ET)
          5 1
          Then why do the oil companies need subsidies? Why is it ok for Exon to get "taxpayers to subsidize THEIR endeavors"?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by progressivesrliars (March 20, 2011 12:11 pm ET)
            1 6
            chuckie: I suggest you take that matter up with your elected representative. By the way, exxon is not given taxpayer money. That is a canard pushed by the left.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by foghornleghorn (March 20, 2011 2:56 pm ET)
              3 1
              Yes they are. They aren't paying their fair share in taxes.

              Why shouldn't oil companies pay their fair share in taxes?
              Report Abuse
            • Author by CoolSlaw (March 20, 2011 6:11 pm ET)
              4 1
              chuckie: I suggest you take that matter up with your elected representative. By the way, exxon is not given taxpayer money. That is a canard pushed by the left.


              http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html

              http://pacificenvironment.org/article.php?id=3199

              http://chattanoogan.com/articles/article_195764.asp

              http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/04/06/exxon-zero-taxes/

              http://climateprogress.org/2010/05/11/exxon-ceo-oil-subsidies/

              http://www.southernstudies.org/2009/12/why-did-us-give-global-warming-denier-exxon-a-3-billion-subsidy-on-the-eve-of-climate-talks.html

              http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2006/03/exxon-mobil-ceo-calls-for-an-end-to-ethanol-subsidies-44323
              Report Abuse
        • Author by Aeval (March 20, 2011 12:46 am ET)
          5 1
          No one has the slightest problem with you doing whatever you want, just don't ask the taxpayers to subsidies your endeavors.
          Matter in fact, it would be more fiscally responsible for government, and cheaper to the taxpayers, to subsidies investments in renewable energy for private households than keep subsidising oil companies, who, by the way, are making nearly a trillion in profit anyway.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by progressivesrliars (March 20, 2011 12:14 pm ET)
            1 6
            Aeval: No it would not be more fiscally responsible. The government has never done anything cheaper, or better than the private sector. And why do your side keep saying we are subsidizing the oil companies, when all we really are doing is agreeing not to take more from them in exchange for them to R and R. It's a trade off, not a subsidy.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by jonimacaroni1 (March 20, 2011 2:07 pm ET)
              2 1
              Just ignore this guy with his 'absolute' statement of "fact" that aren't actually true at all.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by foghornleghorn (March 20, 2011 4:12 pm ET)
              7 1
              The government has never done anything cheaper, or better than the private sector

              Liar. Government doesn't have a profit motive so EVERYTHING they do is cheaper than the private sector.

              Example: Medicare has a 3% overhead while private insurers have a 15% or more overhead.

              Why do you need to lie to make a point? Why do you hate government so much?
              Report Abuse
            • Author by Badtime (March 20, 2011 9:43 pm ET)
              2 1
              Sorry, lets not get into the "let the private sector fix it" mode of thought. I say that for a couple of reasons:

              1. The private sector will never look out for the interests of individuals. This is not evil, but pure capitalism - there is no money to be made in the welfare of individuals.

              2. The call of letting the private sector fix it is really an excuse for inaction. By transferring the responsibility to the private sector, we gain the ability to dismiss the problems that we should be alleviating. After all, if the private sector didn't address it, it must not be a problem.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by jjamele2880 (March 20, 2011 8:04 am ET)
          3 1
          No one has the slightest problem with you doing whatever you want, just don't ask the taxpayers to subsidies your endeavors.

          ...because that subsidy money is reserved into perpetuity for the oil and nuke industries. Got it.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by progressivesrliars (March 20, 2011 12:15 pm ET)
            1 5
            jjamele2880: So are you in favor of subsidizing private industry or against subsidizing private industry? I don't agree with your definition of subsidy, but me, I am against it, across the board.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by CoolSlaw (March 20, 2011 6:18 pm ET)
              8 1
              So are you in favor of subsidizing private industry or against subsidizing private industry?


              Can't you right wingers think beyond absolutes? You are again unable to comprehend the real argument because you desperately cling to false choice arguments and binary thinking.

              Or you are being intellectually dishonest because you know full well that even highly profitable private industries receive subsidies and often pay as little as 0% in corporate taxes?

              The choice is not "do we always support something, or never support something". The real question is what do we support, and for how much. This has always been the question. It's only been since the advent of radical right wing media domination that we get these over-simplified and quite frankly flawed choices in the national debate.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by dtate1965 (March 20, 2011 5:09 pm ET)
             
          Yet you're in favor of the subsidies for big oil. Priceless.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Nihilist (March 19, 2011 10:59 am ET)
      6 1
      what these rightwing slugs arent saying also, is that GE [their pal who owns msnbc, and is always being excoriated by the fox thugs] makes most of the nuclear plants. the ones in japan are GE, the same plants are in illinois and elsewhere. so now fox is a shill for GE unless its on MSNBC. shows what a cabal they really are.


      Report Abuse
      • Author by progressivesrliars (March 19, 2011 12:17 pm ET)
        1 14
        Nihilist: So, stating your opinion now becomes shilling for something? Nuclear power is an alternative energy source. Putting it into the energy mix is not shilling. By the way, fox is not alive, as such, can have no opinion.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by CoolSlaw (March 19, 2011 1:50 pm ET)
          12 1
          Fox can have no opinion, but the ownership, editorial boards, shareholders, producers, on air hosts, and correspondents can and do. Remarkably, they all seem to lean far right.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by progressivesrliars (March 19, 2011 3:04 pm ET)
            1 11
            CoolSlaw: Didn't you take the opposite view when discussing NPR and PBS, on another thread?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by foghornleghorn (March 19, 2011 4:51 pm ET)
              9 1
              False Equivalency Alert!!!

              NPR and PBS do NOT lean left. They lean toward the truth, which lately leans toward the left because the right is filled with liars and those who believe lies.

              Why do you choose to believe lies?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by progressivesrliars (March 19, 2011 5:42 pm ET)
                1 10
                foghornleghorn: Yes they do. And they admit it. Which makes you a liar. Which we already knew, but it's refreshing to remind everyone of that fact every once in a while.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by foghornleghorn (March 19, 2011 5:56 pm ET)
                  8 1
                  No, they don't. If they do, please provide proof.

                  No, they didn't admit it. If they did, please provide proof.

                  Why do you choose to believe lies?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by highlyunlikely (March 19, 2011 6:23 pm ET)
                    6 1
                    on a psychological level? because it promotes his self-image. If he can hold firm to his desired version of the truth then he's more comfortable with himself.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by progressivesrliars (March 19, 2011 6:43 pm ET)
                    1 9
                    NPR’s own official ombudsman, Jeffrey Dvorkin, admitted a liberal bias in NPR’s talk programming. Look it up. And this was years ago. Now prove they have changed.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by foghornleghorn (March 19, 2011 7:25 pm ET)
                      9 1
                      OK - I looked it up.

                      The "admission" took place in 2003. Most of the links were to nutjobs sites like Townhall. And Dvorkin said that there was an occasional liberal slant to ONE show that airs ONE hour per day (Fresh Air).

                      NPR is not biased. Prove me wrong. Now. I demand it.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by progressivesrliars (March 19, 2011 8:01 pm ET)
                        1 8
                        foghornleghorn: I guess you missed all the other times they admitted it.
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by progressivesrliars (March 20, 2011 11:48 am ET)
                        1 5
                        foghornleghorn: So they admit it, by your own admission, yet still I have to prove it to you? Boy, you really are an idiot, aren't you. By the way, Townhall is a very respected site, with many respected writers,etc participating on very stimulating and honest dialogue on many topics, unlike the site you spend your life posting on. By the way, they have admitted it on more than one occasion.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by foghornleghorn (March 20, 2011 2:59 pm ET)
                          5 1
                          Yes, one person admitted to one show that's on the air for one hour leans to the left. And that was 8 years ago.

                          Townhall is NOT respected by anyone with any respect.

                          Please provide examples of more admissions by NPR that they have a liberal bias.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by jaguarundi (March 21, 2011 2:56 am ET)
                            2 1
                            If you're using FUX news as a comparison, Everything previously known to man is Liberally biased. The programs put forth by Joseph Goebbels would certainly be judged to be liberal. Think of it like calling the John Birch Society "Fair and Balanced" then what is everything else?

                            These conserv-a-toads have had their heads shrunk for so long that everything else is left compared to what they sup on.
                            Report Abuse
                          • Author by jaguarundi (March 21, 2011 2:56 am ET)
                            1 1
                            If you're using FUX news as a comparison, Everything previously known to man is Liberally biased. The programs put forth by Joseph Goebbels would certainly be judged to be liberal. Think of it like calling the John Birch Society "Fair and Balanced" then what is everything else?

                            These conserv-a-toads have had their heads shrunk for so long that everything else is left compared to what they sup on.
                            Report Abuse
                      • Author by jonimacaroni1 (March 21, 2011 11:55 am ET)
                        2 1
                        A December 2005 column run by NPR ombudsman and former Vice President Jeffrey Dvorkin denied allegations by some listeners that NPR relies heavily on conservative think-tanks. In his column, Dvorkin listed the number of times NPR had cited experts from conservative and liberal think tanks in the previous year as evidence. The totals were 239 for conservative think tanks, and 141 for liberal ones. He noted that while the number of times liberal think tanks were cited was less, in addition to think tanks the liberal point of view is commonly provided by academics.


                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR#Allegations_of_liberal_bias

                        Then there's this.....

                        http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1180


                        Despite the commonness of claims (of liberal bias at NPR), little evidence has ever been presented for a left bias at NPR, and FAIR’s latest study gives it no support. Looking at partisan sources—including government officials, party officials, campaign workers and consultants—Republicans outnumbered Democrats by more than 3 to 2 (61 percent to 38 percent). A majority of Republican sources when the GOP controls the White House and Congress may not be surprising, but Republicans held a similar though slightly smaller edge (57 percent to 42 percent) in 1993, when Clinton was president and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. And a lively race for the Democratic presidential nomination was beginning to heat up at the time of the 2003 study.

                        Partisans from outside the two major parties were almost nowhere to be seen, with the exception of four Libertarian Party representatives who appeared in a single story (Morning Edition, 6/26/03).

                        Republicans not only had a substantial partisan edge, individual Republicans were NPR’s most popular sources overall, taking the top seven spots in frequency of appearance.
                        Report Abuse
                • Author by kabniel (March 20, 2011 10:21 am ET)
                  4 1
                  conservativesRmorons

                  No they dont, you are a LIAR.

                  No they didnt, you are a LIAR.

                  We knew no such thing. You are a LIAR.

                  You remind us only how stupid you are and that you are a LIAR.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by progressivesrliars (March 20, 2011 11:49 am ET)
                    1 5
                    I guess you people have never heard of google, or are just to ignorant to know how to use it.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by foghornleghorn (March 20, 2011 3:00 pm ET)
                      4 1
                      You made the assertion, you provide the links. Unless you can't.
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by kabniel (March 21, 2011 12:21 pm ET)
                      2 1
                      I have heard of google. I saw the proof you offered last time you made this claim and it didnt back UP your claim. You are a LIAR. It is just that simple. You keep telling the same old lie we have PROVEN is false because you dont CARE if its true. You prefer the lie so you tell the lie. That make you a LIAR
                      Report Abuse
                • Author by Badtime (March 20, 2011 9:47 pm ET)
                  1 1
                  Stating the truth is not having a political bias. Exposing liars and lies is not about bias either.

                  If I were to say that the sun rises in the west, and you were to call me a liar (and provide proof), would that make you the opposite of what I stand for?

                  NPR and PBS may seem like they have a bias to you and your ilk, but that is because you are so far right that you would give Mussolini pause.
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by CoolSlaw (March 20, 2011 6:24 pm ET)
              3 1
              CoolSlaw: Didn't you take the opposite view when discussing NPR and PBS, on another thread?


              You keep trying to put words into my mouth. I have always maintained that NPR was as close to an unbiased news source as you can probably achieve in this day and age. I was in fact, proud of them for maintaining civil discourse and reporting raw information rather then sensationalized partisan shouting matches.

              Cable and Radio news and talk have become the quagmire of sensationalism and lazy partisan stenography, not NPR.
              Report Abuse
    • Author by Egbert Souse (March 19, 2011 11:02 am ET)
      5 1
      1. Japan's geothermal remains largely untapped. The Philippines, for example, produces 1.5 GW from geothermal. However, Japan hitched it's wagon to nuclear power. Therefore, geothermal remains largely ignored there … to date.
      2. Wind farms may be sited off-shore (Belgium and Denmark). And, although in the early stage of development, floating wind turbines are possible, as has been accomplished on a small scale in Norway. In any event, it is unnecessary to site wind turbines on large, flat swaths of dedicated land. Wind turbines may be placed on otherwise unusable or unused land (mudflats, rugged hilltops and low mountain crests) or, as is now happening in the U.S., within farmland. There is at least one small municipality in the U.S. which has installed a turbine in the middle of the town to provide off-grid power.
      3. Japan has no deserts. Therefore, creating solar farms there is a non-starter. But roof-top solar is possible and could reduce Japan's reliance on utility-generated electricity. However, the cost, size, weight and cumbersomeness of installation of photovoltaic panels stands in the way of wide adoption. Nanosolar technology, now being developed in the U.S., may provide a solution to these various impediments to roof-top solar's adoption, including that of cloudy weather. In addition, battery storage of solar panel electrical energy is now being investigated as a means of compensating for days when there is little sun.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by icantthinkofausername (March 19, 2011 11:22 am ET)
      3 5
      That is something I do actually agree with, nuclear power is pretty safe nowadays. The only problem is with getting rid of the nuclear waste, which I have said before. You must shoot the waste to the sun.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by LastSaneManOnEarth (March 19, 2011 11:14 pm ET)
          1
        Cause, like no rockets have ever exploded during a launch.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by steeve (March 19, 2011 11:28 am ET)
      10 1
      "The wind will stop blowing. The sun will be obscured by the clouds." -- Rush

      OMG, I never thought of that. Stop everything! Demolish all windmills now!

      This is a firing offense. Nobody this stupid should be allowed an audience.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by rolandosolana52 (March 19, 2011 1:14 pm ET)
          1
        If the WIND stops blowing and the SUN is obscured by the clouds, then its the end of the world.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by CoolSlaw (March 19, 2011 2:00 pm ET)
        6 1
        Yeah, I was about to re-examine my whole belief in adopting renewable energy sources to supplement our electrical production capabilities as we slowly make the transition from fossil and nuclear fuels because it wasn't windy yesterday.

        Then I realized that ever since I was old enough to know what wind was, it's been windy on and off, so I guess by applying what most first graders are well aware of, we can shoot down that silly Limbaugh argument.

        I remember him telling me it was cold one day on the east coast in the middle of January as a reason for discrediting global climate change.

        Maybe Rush should have been sent to a public grade school. I think they missed those basic weather lessons at the private academy he went to.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by progressivesrliars (March 19, 2011 3:05 pm ET)
        1 12
        Steeve Rush's point is that those two technologies are not the solution they are touted as being.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by kabniel (March 20, 2011 10:25 am ET)
          5 1
          conservativesRmorons

          Then why didnt he say that? That was not his point. He didnt have a point. He was saying something incredibly stupid because he knew his incredibly stupid Limborg audience, like you, will just lap up anything he says no matter how pathetically ignorant it is
          Report Abuse
        • Author by CoolSlaw (March 20, 2011 6:29 pm ET)
          3 1
          Steeve Rush's point is that those two technologies are not the solution they are touted as being.


          How does he know that? What is he basing this grand revelation upon? Did he do the research? is he aware of how these new technologies are being implemented in other countries to a varying degree of success? Is he unaware that all new technologies take time and trial and error to perfect? Does he realize that fossil fuels are way more efficient and cleaner now then they were in their infancy of use when they were more plentiful and easier to extract from what were untapped reservoirs? Does he realize that even after a good hundred or so years of heavy use, those fossil fuels are either close to or past peak extraction and still pollute and have risks and dangers associated with them?

          Yeah, Limbaugh gives you the 25% of the story that suits the agenda of the big republican donors, but far from the whole story.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 19, 2011 11:43 am ET)
      11 1
      The general theme of the righty talking points is that it's "not the right time" to talk about regulation of nuclear power. They suddenly get very "sensitive" when one of their pets go bad.

      Normal people would think that it's a very good time to talk about it.

      Strange that they don't think it's a bad time to attack other sources of energy.

      Pretty much an admission that they can't back up their sh*t, when they want to make special rules about when we can talk about certain issues - that is, we're only allowed to talk about the things they love when the disastrous results of those things has faded in the memory a bit.

      These are the same buffoons who think summer is a bad time to talk about Global Warming.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by jonimacaroni1 (March 19, 2011 12:58 pm ET)
        4  
        Well, to some extent, I agree with them that now's not a great time to talk about this stuff - opinions are inflamed and many people are ill-educated on the topic right now with all the myths and exaggerations that are going on.

        It's the same way when a person near and dear to someone suffers from a violent criminal attack - is a person close to the victim going to be the best person to judge what punishment the criminal should face, or should there be some neutral group that determines that? Inflamed decision makers taking part in a heated debate often won't make the best choices.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by progressivesrliars (March 19, 2011 2:41 pm ET)
        1 10
        Andy Kreiss: It is not the right time to discuss this issue. Now is the time to render aid.

        Nuclear energy is already regulated. From all indications, what ever problem are occurring is really don't a problem of the plants themselves, as they seem to have withstood more wear and tear than they where designed to. The real problem seems to be where they were built. We have no power to do anything about where another nation builds their plants. And we don't need to do any studies to already know we shouldn't built them in active fault zones.

        You lefties are just trying to exploit this disaster for your own gain, both political and financial.

        The White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, let the cat out of the bag when he said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste — and what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you didn’t think you could do before.”
        Report Abuse
        • Author by progressivesrliars (March 19, 2011 2:45 pm ET)
          1 12
          correction: Nuclear energy is already regulated. From all indications, what ever problem that are occurring are really not a problem with the plants themselves, as they seem to have withstood more wear and tear than they where designed to.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by wookie (March 19, 2011 3:04 pm ET)
          9 1
          From all indications, what ever problem are occurring is really don't a problem of the plants themselves, as they seem to have withstood more wear and tear than they where designed to.


          Obviously not. And why did the tests only plan for a 7.2 quake when a bigger one could easily happen? Some of ours are in similar areas like California.

          You lefties are just trying to exploit this disaster for your own gain, both political and financial.


          He who smelled it, dealt it.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Boswell (March 19, 2011 8:05 pm ET)
            3  
            FYI the reason they only designed to a 7.2 is that is all they could really "prove", beyond that when they were built there was no materials that would really stand up to more, perhaps one made now would be able to keep standing. now they MAY withstand more but that is not a given. so GE and some other builders made sure their pocket politicians made 7.2 the "standard". simple really...
            Report Abuse
        • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 20, 2011 2:54 am ET)
          4 1
          TroggyLiar: It is not the right time to discuss this issue. Now is the time to render aid.


          For people who are able to do two things at once, it's time to discuss the issue.

          Providing aid should go without saying, to everybody but the hopelessly stupid.

          That quote from Emmanuel, do you understand it ? Do you understand concepts like making lemonade out of lemons, the silver lining, learning from your mistakes ?

          An intelligent person always tries to take advantage of a negative situation. Only an idiot would think that's a bad thing.

          Are you actually saying that you're so stupid that you think a crisis should go to waste ?

          If you're actually mentally disabled, I apologize for picking on you. But you're one of the stupidest posters I've ever seen on any website, ever.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 20, 2011 2:55 pm ET)
          3  
          BTW,Troggyliar, do you remember the other day when, among all of your other lies, you were caught plagiarizing ? I believe you referred to this dishonesty as "playing by your own rules", and accused me of trying to boss you around by suggesting some basic ethics.

          You got the Wingnut Free Pass on that one, the Special Class sort of rules we use with right wingers, the benefit of the doubt that assumes you're just stupid, rather than dishonest.

          You were given a link to a website explaining the basics of crediting sources, and some tips on using links, the quote box and italics.

          You used up that free pass by plagiarizing again.

          This one's even better.

          Unless you stole from the original source, the first hit that came up on a search of the quote you has the same words in a quote box, with no attribution.

          That is, you may be a second generation plagiarist in this instance.

          Sorry, you've been given too much help here to be given another free pass. This one has to go in the "Liar" column.

          Does this bother you at all, considering your screen name ? You've been trying very hard to find lying on the part of this site, and the posters here, and as far as I've seen, you've completely failed. You haven't been able to point out one example.

          On the other hand, I've lost count of the number of lies you've been busted on here. It would almost be easier to count the times you don't lie.

          Do you think you may have gulped down some Kool-Aid, and that may be why you need to constantly lie to defend yourself ? You might want to think about that. Good luck.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by CoolSlaw (March 20, 2011 6:38 pm ET)
            5 1
            He is really rather dishonest all around, even for a wingnut.

            It's not just plagiarism, he endlessly misrepresents the arguments of others (sometimes basing his rebuttal on the exact opposite of what the poster just got done typing) and forging ahead with his talking points.

            It's almost like he bases his arguments on the projected right wing media talking point caricatures of liberals, and not on the individuals he is misrepresenting to get to his talking points across.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 20, 2011 11:40 pm ET)
              3 1
              Not to single this one out, it seems like a common problem with right wingers, but this one makes his strawmen so blatant. How many comments begin with " So you're saying...", "So you think..." or "In other words..." followed by some bizarro version of what the person wrote.

              Most people who took any sort of logic course in school learned that logical fallacies pretty much lose the argument. Wingnuts seem to have gone to some other school, where they're taught that those fallacies are the foundation of debate.

              On the other hand, they all seem to believe that "name-calling" ( especially pointing out that they're a moron or liar) loses an argument.
              Report Abuse
    • Author by YouDontMeanThat (March 19, 2011 12:23 pm ET)
      1 14
      http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2011/03/17/inconvenient-truth-wind-energy-has-killed-more-americans-nuclear
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mikehuck1976 (March 19, 2011 12:32 pm ET)
        11 1
        Add wind turbines to the long list of things that today's extremely cowardly right-wingers choose to have a bizarre, irrational fear of.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by beDecent (March 19, 2011 2:03 pm ET)
          8 1
          Oh, it's totally rational when the people who pay for your livlihood (oil companies) would lose a lot of money if people switched from oil to an alternative energy source; therefore, they have to go on TV and say what the oil companies want them to say. Evil plans.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by jonimacaroni1 (March 19, 2011 12:53 pm ET)
        12 1
        Bathtubs in homes have killed many more people in the USA than wind turbines. Do you propose that we get rid of them? Guns? Stairs? Playground equipment? Swimming pools? Heavy furniture accidentally falling on kids? Cars? Bikes? Table saws? Ladders?

        The idea that it's an inconvenient truth that anything useful can also sometimes be dangerous is nonsensical.

        Intelligent people recognize that one needs to look at the inherent, potential dangers and risks from activities and balance those with the potential benefits. Only by a fair examination of the shortcomings and the benefits can one make a fair determination. The rightwing isn't interested in doing a fair evaluation - they only want to fearmonger and distort.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by CoolSlaw (March 19, 2011 2:05 pm ET)
          8 1
          Excellent point.

          In the small city where I live, more people died tragically from a gas leak explosion and resulting fire downtown this winter then have died from wind and solar generation to date.

          They really are grasping at some incredibly weak and just downright irrational reasons to stop America from moving ahead on new energy producing technologies. I guess they want us to fall behind the curve. I guess they don't care much about dependence on despotic regimes for obtaining fossil fuels.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by beDecent (March 19, 2011 2:01 pm ET)
        3 1
        Haha right, by people parachuting into them? I'm sure that made the Darwin Awards, or at least got an honorable mention.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by jonimacaroni1 (March 19, 2011 2:47 pm ET)
          5 1
          There was one parachutist killed on her first solo attempt. Plenty of people have been killed by flying into power lines and power poles over the years.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by beDecent (March 19, 2011 3:29 pm ET)
            5 1
            I can't imagine how else you could get killed by a wind turbine, other than workers falling off of them--but nobody's ever been killed working on an oil rig!

            They're digging for reasons against turbines. Have none of them seen a windmill? It's such a simple concept, and it worked for years.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by jonimacaroni1 (March 21, 2011 12:08 pm ET)
              4 1
              Occasionally a blade will come flying off, and very infrequently a tower will collapse, and so there's the chance that someone will be killed by either of those two things. They have brakes to stop them from spinning too fast, and if the brakes fail, the stress can be too much for the blade.

              In most areas, wind turbines are far away from populated areas.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 21, 2011 2:38 pm ET)
              3 1
              I've heard stories about ice forming on the stationary blades, and falling off in deadly sheets as they thaw. Can't say that I remember if these were credible stories, or right wing fables, but sounds about as avoidable as not standing under roof edges during the thaw.
              Report Abuse
      • Author by kabniel (March 20, 2011 10:27 am ET)
        3 1
        NEWSBUSTERS? You have got to be kidding?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 21, 2011 2:39 pm ET)
          2 1
          Sometimes I think they deliberately link to the silly sources, so they can start crying about "attacking the messenger!".
          Report Abuse
    • Author by beDecent (March 19, 2011 1:50 pm ET)
      4 1
      However, studies show that the use of wind and solar energy is increasing at a record pace, and continuing investment in wind and solar will yield significant economic benefits.
      It won't yield significant economic benefits for Big Oil, though. As long as the oil companies are at the reigns of our government, the rest of the world will continue ahead of us in advancing alternative energy.

      The people who aren't bought and paid for by Big Oil need to step up; when it comes to denying climate science, our best interests are NOT at heart.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by progressivesrliars (March 19, 2011 4:17 pm ET)
        1 13
        You lefties are debating something no one is objecting to. As has been said many times, go ahead and invest, invent, use, whatever type of energy you want. No one is really opposing you. Just don't ask for it to be subsidized by the federal government.
        By the way, big oil is energy. As such, they, as a group, are heavily invested in all types of energy sources, not just oil. I use G.E. as an example of this. They, like most corporations, including standard oil and chevron, are have their eggs in many "energy" baskets.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by blueblood (March 19, 2011 4:41 pm ET)
          10 1
          Big Oil gets billions in tax breaks and cheap leases to rape public lands for ever dwindling supplies of cheap fossil fuels.

          Fossil fuels destroy the environment in their extraction and burning and yet this is fine to conservative idiots like you be aide somehow the magical market selected it.

          Take your fourth grade intellect and debating skills to some trash right wing cesspool.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by foghornleghorn (March 19, 2011 4:54 pm ET)
            7 1
            I love how progliar thinks the free market can solve all our problems, when in many cases the free market is the CAUSE of many of our problems.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by progressivesrliars (March 19, 2011 5:52 pm ET)
              1 10
              foghornleghorn: I don't believe the free market can solve ALL problems. Neither can the government, though it sure is the cause of most of our problems. As bad as our government is, though,it's a lot better than the old style governments we have tried in the past, such as communism, fascism, imperialism, dictatorships, monarcy's, etc.

              But some, like you, I presume, seem to prefer going back to using one of those old failed models. I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't even favor a mixture of some of those failed political systems.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by foghornleghorn (March 19, 2011 6:03 pm ET)
                9 1
                though it sure is the cause of most of our problems

                Another lie. Why do you insist on telling lies? Don't you get tired of telling lies?

                And who's "we" in "we have tried in the past"? The human race?

                Are you really this stupid are are you pretending?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by progressivesrliars (March 19, 2011 6:49 pm ET)
                  1 9
                  foghornleghorn: I don't know, but governments waging war seems to be at the top on my list of problems mankind has faced, throughout history. Government repression of its citizens is also up there as another major problem caused by government. I really do believe the free market system has not perpetrated anything near as heinous. Can you give me some examples of how the free market perpetrated worse atrocities against mankind than have governments?

                  You really do make the left look foolish, you do know that, don't you?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by foghornleghorn (March 19, 2011 7:29 pm ET)
                    7 1
                    You need help. Please return to the 21st century.

                    Is government the cause of most of our problems TODAY?

                    I'm not looking to debate historical political regimes with you, because you've proven to be uneducated about basic history.

                    And you've proven to be a liar.

                    Prove me wrong.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by progressivesrliars (March 19, 2011 7:41 pm ET)
                      1 8
                      foghornleghorn: How do you define today? If you are saying this day in history, than yes, I say with all confidence that government is complicit in all of our problems, in the cases where they are not the sole cause of our problems. Or, are you being provincial and are just speaking of the United States?
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by foghornleghorn (March 19, 2011 9:03 pm ET)
                        4 1
                        I say with all confidence that government is complicit in all of our problems

                        My advice to you is to move to Somalia.

                        Why do you hate America so much?
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 20, 2011 2:56 am ET)
                        1 1
                        It takes a village.
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by kabniel (March 20, 2011 10:34 am ET)
                        5 1
                        conservativesRmorons

                        I love the way you rightwingnuts CLAIM to love America but HATE Americas government. Since as citizens we ARE the government you obviously hate us citizens too. I knew you were self loathing but you really take it to the extreme. I just cannot abide morons who claim to love America while they so OBVIOUSLY hate Americans
                        Report Abuse
              • Author by jjamele2880 (March 20, 2011 8:13 am ET)
                7 1
                ,it's a lot better than the old style governments we have tried in the past, such as communism, fascism, imperialism, dictatorships, monarcy's, etc.

                Ok, I'm convinced you are a 15-year old taking your first political science class in HS ever. Because seriously, buddy, if you think that "fascism, imperialism, dictatorships" are "old style governments..." just, wow. And I won't even get into "monarcy's." It's Monarchies, and there's no apostrophe "s." And you don't seem to know the difference between economic systems and forms of government.

                You also have REPEATEDLY argued that we are "free" to pursue other energy strategies, but NOT to ask the government for subsidies, while Big Oil continues to RELY on HUGE subsidies from the government, including stunningly low tax rates. How is this the "free market" at work? Don't call your teacher today, it's Sunday after all, but I encourage you to ask him first thing tomorrow in class.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by CoolSlaw (March 20, 2011 6:47 pm ET)
                4 1
                foghornleghorn: I don't believe the free market can solve ALL problems. Neither can the government


                Binary thinking strawman again. I don't recall anyone here stating that the government can solve all our problems.

                You keep projecting these talking point caricatures of liberals as fed to you by right wing media, progsrliars.

                Why don't you bother to listen to the actual beliefs of the individuals here? Are you afraid that you might be realize the "left" that your media personalities demonize daily are more reasonable and moderate then you were led to believe?

                Report Abuse
          • Author by progressivesrliars (March 19, 2011 5:47 pm ET)
            1 11
            blueblood: I suppose you don't use their product, is that what you are saying? If you do benefit from their product, than I submit you are complicit in the very acts you speak of.
            There are pros and cons to fossil fuels. On balance they have greatly improved the life's billions upon billions of people.
            Typical self hating liberal.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Johaely (March 19, 2011 5:55 pm ET)
              8 1
              Of course he must use the product. There is no other choice. The only reason they are so cheap and the "free market" hasn't touched renewables is because they are not profitable at the moment. They don't have the same subsidies as oil.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by progressivesrliars (March 19, 2011 6:52 pm ET)
                1 10
                Johaely: I just point out that if you use the products being produced by fossil fuels, don't be in such a rush to demonize fossil fuels, or those who produce it.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Johaely (March 19, 2011 8:13 pm ET)
                  4 1
                  The only reason people use those products is because there is practically a monopoly.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by CoolSlaw (March 20, 2011 7:01 pm ET)
                  5 1
                  Johaely: I just point out that if you use the products being produced by fossil fuels, don't be in such a rush to demonize fossil fuels, or those who produce it.


                  There is a difference between demonizing a product, and demonizing the people who are controlling that industry.

                  I enjoy a good beer now and again, but if I learned the people making my favorite brew were donating their profits to a "kill the pandas and bald eagles" organization, I would surely stop drinking that brand.

                  The reason it may be difficult to separate the two, is because the oil industry is a strong oligopoly and our society decided a long time ago, as the technology became more prevalent, to be powered by fossil fuels.

                  As liberals, we understand that we live in a society. We aren't going to live in an underground shelter avoiding taxes and stockpiling weapons and survival seeds. We need to go to work and public transportation outside of most metropolitan (and sometimes within) is pretty abysmal. You need a car if you live anywhere beyond a moderate walk to work, and what happens if you have health issues and live with inclement weather and traffic safety issues in your area? It's just not possible to fold your arms and say you aren't going to be able to live without fossil fuels as we have structured our society that way.

                  We were one of the first nations to embrace fossil fuels, and we have grown in population while the fossil fuels slowly dwindle as they are used at an exponentially faster rate to meet the needs of that growing population.

                  To try and stick your head in the sand and say that we can move forward without developing an alternative to these fossil fuels is willfully ignorant of reality. It is also ignorant to claim that we can just drop fossil fuels the moment we have a working wind or solar generation plant, though no one with any common sense has suggested that. The goal is to start the push forward into a common sense approach that begins by supplementing the use of fossil fuels with renewable sources now, and let the technology develop. Perhaps something better will come out of the research and make all these forms of energy obsolete? We won't know until we try, and we will be left behind the curve of other nations if we don't try.
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by highlyunlikely (March 19, 2011 5:55 pm ET)
              5 1
              now THAT's projection, 3pro.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by foghornleghorn (March 19, 2011 6:09 pm ET)
                9 1
                progliar's probably one of those guys who doesn't believe in global warming because Al Gore flies in private jets and lives in a big house.

                He's also one of those guys who thinks that because the left is pro-alternative fuels that means they want to immediately ban the use of fossil fuels.

                He's also one of those guys who's opinions are based solely on lies.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by highlyunlikely (March 19, 2011 6:21 pm ET)
                  5 1
                  I was referring to the self-hating part but there's all of that you mention too, of course.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by progressivesrliars (March 19, 2011 6:54 pm ET)
                  1 9
                  So I take it that you are all on board with off shore drilling, anwar, nuclear power plants, oil and gas productions on federal lands, etc? As long as its done safely?
                  Report Abuse
        • Author by beDecent (March 19, 2011 6:14 pm ET)
          8 1
          Just don't ask for it to be subsidized by the federal government.
          As soon as every corporation starts paying their fair share of taxes, and stops lobbying for exorbitant tax breaks and stops abusing loopholes in our tax system, I'll take this seriously. To quote you, "you really are stupid" if you believe your Wall Street heroes didn't make some of their millions without the help of middle-class taxpayers.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by progressivesrliars (March 19, 2011 6:55 pm ET)
            1 9
            beDecent: Who says there not already? Who defines, 'their fair share", anyway?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by progressivesrliars (March 19, 2011 6:56 pm ET)
              1 8
              Should have been, their not already.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by beDecent (March 19, 2011 7:04 pm ET)
                7 1
                Actually, it should have been "they're not already," and I wouldn't call $0 or even a tax return for multimillion dollar companies paying their fair share, which is defined by the size of our economy in relation to the population.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by progressivesrliars (March 19, 2011 7:46 pm ET)
                  1 11
                  beDecent: Did you go to the site you posted? The only company not paying taxes is General Electric. Don't they own MSNBC? Doesn't MSNBC and Media Matters parrot the same talking points?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by beDecent (March 19, 2011 7:53 pm ET)
                    8 1
                    Hahaha no, GE is not the only company not paying taxes, and it really doesn't matter to me what they own or what they do--that's moot. Anyway, that link mentions more companies than GE (ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips), but here's another, with even more companies.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 19, 2011 8:29 pm ET)
                      7 1
                      Bedecent, Are you really trying to have a conversation with this?

                      by progressivesrliars (March 19, 2011 6:55 pm ET) Who says there not already?

                      by progressivesrliars (March 19, 2011 6:56 pm ET) Should have been, their not already.


                      I had some laughs with it the other day, but don't expect any sort of light to go on there. )Or their, or they're.)
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by beDecent (March 19, 2011 8:41 pm ET)
                        4 1
                        Haha, eh... My boyfriend's watching March Madness, my least favorite sporting event. I have time right now?
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 20, 2011 2:46 am ET)
                          3 2
                          Go ahead and play with him/her, I'm just saying don't expect too much.

                          Check out this thread.

                          Troggyliar may just be goofing around, or it may actually be that stoopid. Either way, not really showing any signs of being capable of an actual conversation.
                          Report Abuse
                  • Author by kabniel (March 20, 2011 10:38 am ET)
                      2
                    ConservativesRmorons

                    You are a LIAR. Why do you tell lies so constantly? All you do is show how stupid and uninformed you are. You are too stupid to even understand the concept of irony or your head would explode when you talk to US about talking points.
                    Report Abuse
        • Author by kabniel (March 20, 2011 10:32 am ET)
          2 2
          conservativesRmorons

          You are a LIAR. Limbaugh was clearly lying and demonizing renewable energy. That is obvious. We only HAVE the internet, railroads, an automotive industry, computer industry, telecommunication industry, aircraft industry, ad naseum BECAUSE of gov investment. Oil WILL run out. We SHOULD invest in the future. If we do we can lead the world in such technology and have something to export.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by John Puma (March 19, 2011 6:54 pm ET)
      4 1
      It's a perfect example of the radical reich's strategy:
      they insist their own, considerable weaknesses be the norm while ruthlessly attacking the strength of their opposition as subversive.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by progressivesrliars (March 19, 2011 6:59 pm ET)
        1 9
        John Puma: radical reich? I guess you can say David Brock is part of the radical reich, as his site does employ propaganda techniques developed by Joseph Goebbels.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by beDecent (March 19, 2011 7:08 pm ET)
          7 1
          ...his site does employ propaganda techniques developed by Joseph Goebbels.
          Elaborate.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by foghornleghorn (March 19, 2011 7:31 pm ET)
            8 1
            More projection. Since he believes the right-wing hate radio/Fox propaganda tactics employed by the Nazis, he thinks that the left-wing does as well.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by beDecent (March 19, 2011 7:37 pm ET)
              6 1
              He's just gonna respond with, "You're so stupid, idiot." And more projection.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by Johaely (March 19, 2011 8:10 pm ET)
              10 1
              Explain how this site employs these concepts with proof an examples of each.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by Boswell (March 19, 2011 8:11 pm ET)
              6 1
              thanks for posting your playbook!
              Report Abuse
            • Author by beDecent (March 19, 2011 8:19 pm ET)
              7 1
              I appreciate the effort, but I meant examples of Goebbels-esque propaganda on MMfA; by definition, facts can't really be included in a propaganda piece, and MMfA backs most everything up with verifiable facts. Is this blog post an example of propaganda, by pointing out the right-wing media attacks on renewable energy and then giving studies and research that disprove the right-wing claims on alternative energy?
              Report Abuse
            • Author by jjamele2880 (March 20, 2011 8:19 am ET)
              8 1
              Sigh. Another cut and paste wizard. Can't spell, pretends not to know that oil companies collect huge subsidies from the government (and apparently thinks ZERO is their "fair share,") has an extremely limited vocabulary, but sure can cut and paste!

              Notice that whenever these uneducated, drooling trolls post a list or several long paragraphs, the diction is perfect although the reasoning is not and it's no more honest than their other posts? I wonder if they even read them, or are just cutting and pasting out of an understanding that they really don't know what they are talking about and desperately need help from Bad Info Central.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Andy Kreiss (March 20, 2011 2:43 pm ET)
                5 1
                This one is stunningly dense, even by right wing troll standards. He may be playing around, or very young, but either way it's amazing that he takes the time to parade this sort of stupidity.

                Even if he's a prankster trying to make right wingers look bad, it's a little over the top.

                Q. Can you give an example of this site using Goebbels' techniques?

                A. Here is a list of Goebbels techniques.


                Which he introduced by ( accidentally, I assume) admitting that if one watched the entire programs cited here, one would see those propaganda techniques in action.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by kabniel (March 20, 2011 10:44 am ET)
              4 1
              conservativesRmorons

              I could go through that cut and paste and destroy it utterly by pointing out how it is completely irrelevant to what MMFA does but why should I bother. It is so transparenly STUPID as a way to bolster your claim anyone with two braincells to rub toghether sees it already and you are too stupid to understand while being too cement headed to allow even the most rudimentary fact or glimpse of reality into your sad little world of Planet Wingnut
              Report Abuse
            • Author by Badtime (March 20, 2011 9:58 pm ET)
              5 1
              Ingredients
              1 boneless chicken breast half, cooked and diced
              2 cups water
              2 carrots, chopped
              1 zucchini, diced
              1 clove garlic, minced
              1/2 teaspoon chicken broth base

              Directions
              Put cooked chicken meat and water in a large pot and bring to a boil.
              Add the carrots, zucchini and garlic and simmer all together for 5 to 10 minutes.
              Add the chicken broth and simmer for an additional 5 minutes. Serve.

              And that is a recipe for chicken soup. It has about as much relevance to the content of MMfA that your post did.

              See, I can copy/paste like a plagiarizing first-semester undergrad too
              Report Abuse
        • Author by kabniel (March 20, 2011 10:40 am ET)
          4 1
          ConservativesRmorons

          You are a LIAR. That would be Beck and Rush. They have you spouting lies constantly by being so pathetically brainwashed you are hardly a human being at all. SSSKKKKWWWAAAAKKKKKK you say SSSSKKKKKWWWWAAAKKKKKK
          Report Abuse
    • Author by markmaginn7023 (March 19, 2011 7:06 pm ET)
        1
      I agree with you, Johaely, the large energy producers-coal, gas, electric and nuclear are probably not interested in renewables at now since the are not currently profitable. But let's expand this a bit. Renewables are trending up in terms of market share and profitability. There will come a time when energy producers will take notice. But let's not kid ourselves: do we really think those producers aren't following the renewables very closely as the renewables gain market share?

      I agree also with progressivesareliars, to a point. The commentaries above don't indicate that they are trying to outright sink renewables, but they are certainly disparaging of them so it does make one wonder. Let's suppose that these commentators are from the right and generally supportive of the Republican Party, thus promoting from time to time the party's interests. It is, I think, safe to say that the Republican Party, in the main, supports legislation that benefits big business, e.g. the mainline energy producers. It strains credulity to think that these producers, their political patrons and the above commentators aren't aware that renewables might be the wave of the future, a wave that has the potential to wash away a good bit of market share of the large energy producers. Given all this, what might the triumvirate of large energy, the Republican Party and the commentators above be inclined to do? Certainly not disparage renewables, and certainly not some in the Republican Party introducing legislation that would favor old energy over new energy. And I'm certainly not implying that there is a straight line connection between those actions, am I?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by markmaginn7023 (March 19, 2011 7:12 pm ET)
         
      Come,come,come, administrators. How many comments do I have to send to this board before I'm approved for public consumption? When will you decide to post my comments. I've posted 3 lately. What's the number of acceptable comments I need to make before I'm approved.

      You can respond to me preferably at markmaginn91@gmail.com, or at markmaginn@comcast.net

      I've written a few lengthy comments. Please read them and decide.

      Mark Maginn
      Report Abuse
    • Author by ms77sphs5900sw (March 19, 2011 7:38 pm ET)
        1
      Fox News works for the oil companies
      Report Abuse
    • Author by jprevj (March 20, 2011 11:49 am ET)
        1
      If you can read the above quotes and come away with the conclusion that the right is not attacking renewable energy you have reading comprehension problem.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by What Happens When The Oil Is Gone (March 20, 2011 1:27 pm ET)
      1 9
      The point is that these "renewable" energy sources will not be able to sustain the current way of life. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure that out.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by foghornleghorn (March 20, 2011 3:03 pm ET)
        6 1
        Are you sure about that? Why do you hate our scientific expertise so much?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by What Happens When The Oil Is Gone (March 20, 2011 3:32 pm ET)
          1 6
          Can renewables sustain affluent society.

          Alternative energy sources.

          Lets just put it this way. The day oil runs out or becomes to expensive to extract billions of people will die because oil is used for much more than driving a car.

          Look things up. You might learn something new.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by foghornleghorn (March 20, 2011 4:16 pm ET)
            4 1
            Your doomsday talk is getting tiresome. Why don't you have faith in humankind?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by What Happens When The Oil Is Gone (March 20, 2011 4:59 pm ET)
              1 6
              Then don't respond to me.

              Why do you keep placing humans above natural law? Is it because the universe is supposed to look after us?

              There is a reason human population couldn't surpass 1.5 billion before the discovery of oil. What makes you think it can be sustained without it?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by foghornleghorn (March 20, 2011 5:15 pm ET)
                5 1
                OK, I won't respond to you.

                I'm not placing humans above natural law. Why do you have to lie about what I said?

                And your last statement is false causation and basically fantastically idiotic to think that population would stop at 1.5 billion because oil wasn't discovered.

                First you lie about what I said, then tell a lie about population and oil. Why must you lie to make a point?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by What Happens When The Oil Is Gone (March 20, 2011 6:01 pm ET)
                  1 7
                  How is what I said about population a lie?

                  Give me a reason why for thousands of years before the discovery of oil the population remained about 1 billion, and in the last 300 years it has grown exponentially to 8 billion?

                  Could it be because through the discovery of oil we were able to invent internal combustion engines and fertilizers, allowing us to mass produce food, which in turn allows more people to exist. Can you supply a better reason?

                  Stop referring to everything you disagree with as a lie.

                  Also I did not lie about what you said, I was merely giving you my interpretation of what you were saying in a question form. All you had to say was that you don't put humans above natural law, but no you said I was lying because you did not agree with my question.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by foghornleghorn (March 20, 2011 7:55 pm ET)
                    7 1
                    Give me a reason why for thousands of years before the discovery of oil the population remained about 1 billion,

                    I can't because that's not true.

                    The world population has experienced continuous growth since the end of the Bubonic Plague around the years 1348-1350.

                    The population didn't reach 1 billion until 1804 and 2 billion until 1927. Therefore, you're telling another lie.

                    I was merely giving you my interpretation of what you were saying in a question form

                    Yes, even though the question didn't refer to anything I wrote, it was not a lie. I take that one back.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by What Happens When The Oil Is Gone (March 20, 2011 8:10 pm ET)
                      1 5

                      The population didn't reach 1 billion until 1804 and 2 billion until 1927. Therefore, you're telling another lie.


                      Ok it didn't reach 1 billion until 1804. However, the growth was linear for the preceding 100,000 years up till then. Then once we discovered oil and other fossil fuels population has grown exponentially. There is no denying that fact.

                      Human population.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by foghornleghorn (March 20, 2011 8:47 pm ET)
                        5 1
                        But correlating it to oil and the combustion engine is faulty as well. I could say that population increased due to advances in medicine.

                        Your analysis is simplistic and frankly, incomplete and borderline wrong.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by What Happens When The Oil Is Gone (March 20, 2011 9:40 pm ET)
                          1 5
                          Many medicines are made using oil. Do some research on the advantages of oil before you say anything more.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by jaguarundi (March 21, 2011 3:38 am ET)
                            4 1
                            Do you understand organic chemistry? All of the chemical products derived from oil can be derived from other sources in this biosphere. The energy and materials cost right now are prohibitive (with oil < $200/bbl) but if oil costs $1,000 a barrel, guess what? For example, look at the Haber-Bosch process for producing fertilizer. All you really need is catalysts, air and the energy to fractionate air. The energy could be supplied by solar, wind, nuclear or whatever.

                            I think the "explosion" of population has been due to many simultaneous issues. Among these are: increased longevity, reduced mortality - especially infant, increased land usage/productivity. All of these were due to increased scientific knowledge (petroleum exploitation has occurred concurrently). It's more of an effect than a cause. I think the population explosion shows a lack of foresight and too much prevalence of religion (or the wrong religions). We as humans seem to require a disaster (sometimes catastrophic) to alter our collective course. Democracies are similar, we can't seem to get together unless faced with an epic crisis. I don't see the population explosion ceasing until we have an absolute crisis.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by What Happens When The Oil Is Gone (March 21, 2011 12:28 pm ET)
                              1 3
                              Ok so I read the first two sentences of the Haber-Bosch process and it requires natural gas.

                              I am sorry I should have been more broad with my assertion. Fossil fuels, not just oil, have been the catalyst to the growth in population.

                              Do liberals really struggle with seeing the connection between fossil fuels and the industrial revolution that lead to our current society?
                              Report Abuse
    • Author by MagCynic (March 21, 2011 9:55 am ET)
      1 2
      I find it interesting that more people have been killed in America by wind power than by nuclear power. Does anybody else find this interesting?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by The_Cat (March 21, 2011 10:07 am ET)
        1 1
        It might be interesting if it were true, MagCynic.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by MagCynic (March 21, 2011 10:18 am ET)
          1 3
          Is it not true? I can't find anywhere in which somebody died due to nuclear power. I can find cases where people have died due to wind power.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by jediknight65 (March 21, 2011 10:36 am ET)
            4 1
            Cecil Kelley

            Wood River Junction

            SL-1 (this one killed three people)

            Harry K. Daghlian, Jr.

            Louis Slotin

            care to try again?
            Report Abuse
          • Author by jediknight65 (March 21, 2011 10:42 am ET)
            2 1
            im waiting mag.....you made the idiotic claim no one has been killed by nuclear power......put up or shut up time
            Report Abuse
            • Author by MagCynic (March 21, 2011 10:46 am ET)
              1 3
              I already told you what to Google. You appear to have listed people who have died in various labs and what not. I'm talking about nuclear power reactors.

              Compare the deaths at both nuclear power plants and wind power plants.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by jediknight65 (March 21, 2011 10:47 am ET)
                4 1
                of course you didnt bother to search SL-1.....THAT WAS A NUCLEAR REACTOR
                Report Abuse
                • Author by MagCynic (March 21, 2011 10:51 am ET)
                  1 3
                  It was also in the experimental phase and run by the Army. AND, per Wikipedia, "The event is the only known fatal reactor accident in the United States."

                  Despite the fact that it was an experiment I'll give it to you. More people have still died as a result of wind power than nuclear power.

                  SOURCE
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by jediknight65 (March 21, 2011 10:56 am ET)
                    5 1
                    sorry you claimed no one died from nuclear power.

                    should have used your head a bit more.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by jediknight65 (March 21, 2011 10:58 am ET)
                    3 1
                    well gee......why could that be....hmmmm...


                    lets see wind turbines are mostly hollow tubes

                    nuclear power plants are reinforced concrete........

                    could that possibly explain the death rate?

                    if wind turbines were made of reinforced concrete and steel i bet those death rates would lower......but that doesnt fit into your argument.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by MagCynic (March 21, 2011 11:01 am ET)
                      1 2
                      Let me re-state my argument then:

                      In the United States, if you go by death rates, wind power plants are more dangerous than nuclear power plants.

                      There. Is that specific enough for you? Can we agree on that statement?
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by jediknight65 (March 21, 2011 11:03 am ET)
                        1 1
                        sure as wind turbines are constructed currently yes they are.

                        but as i said above make them reinforced buildings and i guarantee death rates will go down
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by MagCynic (March 21, 2011 11:06 am ET)
                          1 3
                          OK. Then we can come back to the stats when they start making them like that. Until that happens, more people have been killed with wind power than with nuclear power in this country.

                          My point is that completely shutting down the use of nuclear power in this country because of what's happening in Japan is illogical. We certainly can learn about better way to secure our nuclear reactors, but to think about shutting them down completely is ridiculous.

                          Not only that, but wind farms take up a huge amount of space for relatively little power. It may be "cleaner" but it certainly isn't as efficient as other methods of energy production when looked at on a per square mile basis.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by jediknight65 (March 21, 2011 11:20 am ET)
                            1 1
                            well shutting them all down is one thing.......nuclear power has a place if used properly and safely.

                            should start by shutting down all the plants that would be in danger from earthquakes, tsunamis, or other seismic and geological disasters.
                            Report Abuse
                          • Author by jonimacaroni1 (March 21, 2011 12:17 pm ET)
                            2 1
                            We could use about 3% of the state of Arizona and provide enough power, with solar alone, to power all of the USA.

                            There's plenty of land in the USA for wind farms or solar arrays.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by MagCynic (March 21, 2011 12:22 pm ET)
                              1 2
                              We could use about 3% of the state of Arizona and provide enough power, with solar alone, to power all of the USA.
                              Complete and utter BS. Prove it.

                              Wind and solar power are viable in certain scenarios, just not to be our primary method of energy production.
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by jonimacaroni1 (March 21, 2011 12:37 pm ET)
                                1 1
                                It was a quote from someone on TV who knew what they were talking about.

                                It's not BS. Your nonsense about citing absurd and irrelevant death rates (people die all the time after falls and from traffic accidents while on the job, so citing them as directly attributible to wind power is ridiculous) is BS. It ignores the other factors regarding the variety of power generation sources we have - how potentially dangerous is it to humans, to the environment, how costly, is it a non-renewable source, what by-products are there, and are those by-products dangerous, etc. Your concentration on one untrue stat is dishonest.
                                Report Abuse
                      • Author by jediknight65 (March 21, 2011 11:06 am ET)
                          1
                        i wonder how many deaths from nuculear power there would be if all the safety measures and protective sheilding were removed......basically making them as hollow and flimsy as wind turbines......hmmm......think the death rates would go up maybe then?
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by jonimacaroni1 (March 21, 2011 12:13 pm ET)
                        3 1
                        Death rates aren't the only thing to consider.

                        Potential threats to the health of Americans is important too, and that's why we want to limit those things that are potentially more dangerous and utilize things that are potentially less dangerous.

                        Binary thinkers only look at one variable. Dishonest people do that too. You're both.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by MagCynic (March 21, 2011 12:23 pm ET)
                          1 2
                          Yes. I'm totally dishonest for being very clear in what I'm talking about. Try again, hypocrite.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by jonimacaroni1 (March 21, 2011 12:42 pm ET)
                            2 1
                            Yes, you are being totally dishonest. It's called a lie by omission. Concentrating on that one variable about deaths related to wind power, while ignoring the facts about deaths related to construction and traffic deaths from nuclear power plant construction and maintenance is dishonest. When you leave out that info, and then you compound the dishonesty by ignoring the other risk factors regarding nuclear power, you're lying by omission. Doing what you're doing is not an honest way to discuss wind power versus nuclear.

                            If I only talk about all the people who were killed using stairs, versus the number of people killed using ramps, you'd think that we should destroy any building that has stairs, but of course that's not true nor is it reasonable.
                            Report Abuse
                      • Author by jonimacaroni1 (March 21, 2011 12:29 pm ET)
                        3 1
                        Let me re-state my argument then:

                        In the United States, if you go by death rates, wind power plants are more dangerous than nuclear power plants.

                        There. Is that specific enough for you? Can we agree on that statement?


                        That's a bold-faced lie.

                        There were plenty of people who died when nuclear power plants were being built in the USA. They fell from high places, and were killed on the road while construction parts were being transported, just like the deaths involving wind turbines.

                        Then, top that off with the fact that any argument that relies only upon death rates, rather than upon the potential risks and actual risks, is a wholly dishonest argument.
                        Report Abuse
              • Author by jediknight65 (March 21, 2011 10:50 am ET)
                3 1
                i listed deaths of people due to nuclear power in one form or another. now i admit the last two are a slight stretch...but the principle is true since the Demon Core that killed them was undergoing a nuclear chain reaction.....

                but ESPECIALLY SL-1........people died. and that was a nuclear reactor. in refutation of your idiotic claim that no american has died by nuclear power.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by kabniel (March 21, 2011 2:03 pm ET)
            1 1
            You never heard of Karen Silkwood? Then you are too uninformed to be commenting on this subject
            Report Abuse
        • Author by gman004 (March 21, 2011 10:28 am ET)
          1 2
          So where is your proof that it isn't true? Ohyeah, that's it, you don't do any research ,so you don't know. It is a fact, more deaths from solar,wind,and geothermal energy than nuclear, not to mention the millions of dollars renewable enrgy is sucking up without prducing hardly anything of value energy wise.

          What they offer, they say, is technological savvy, unconventional thinking and flexible schedules, usually unencumbered by family commitments
          Chew on this from Hampton Roads area, one big problem is teaching our kids that they can simply run some bullcrap business and make lots of money, it is coming to an abrupt ending.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by MagCynic (March 21, 2011 10:32 am ET)
            1 2
            It doesn't happen very often, but if you Google "wind power deaths in america" and "nuclear power deaths in america", I'm sure even The_Cat wouldn't be able to argue that more people have died as a result of wind power than nuclear power.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by jediknight65 (March 21, 2011 10:37 am ET)
              3 1
              run these as search terms and try to say again that no one has died from nuclear power

              Cecil Kelley

              Wood River Junction

              SL-1 (this one killed three people)

              Harry K. Daghlian, Jr.

              Louis Slotin
              Report Abuse
            • Author by jediknight65 (March 21, 2011 10:37 am ET)
              2  
              ummmm yeah newsbusters isnt a credible source sorry try again
              Report Abuse
              • Author by MagCynic (March 21, 2011 10:49 am ET)
                1 2
                Good thing I didn't link to Newsbusters.

                I can't find anybody who has died as a result of nuclear power. It seems that you previously listed three people who have died working at nuclear laps for various experiments.

                Even IF you include those three people, I can find sources in which more people have died working with wind power than with nuclear power.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by jediknight65 (March 21, 2011 10:53 am ET)
                  2 1
                  and the wind accidents you can cite im sure relate to collapsing or structural issues.

                  guess what genius......thats what happened with SL 1

                  here check this out and try to say no one died from nuclear power


                  http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/pubs/00326644.pdf
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by jediknight65 (March 21, 2011 11:00 am ET)
                  2 1
                  course you're not gonna read the article, you already proved that unless you can twist the proof you wont read it.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by MagCynic (March 21, 2011 11:01 am ET)
                    1 2
                    Again, we're having like three different conversations. Continue here.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by congero6189599 (March 21, 2011 11:23 am ET)
                    2 1
                    Oh MagCynic and the Ann Coulter defense:
                    Ann Coulter: Radiation Is 'Good For You' (VIDEO)
                    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/18/ann-coulter-radiation-is-_n_837512.html



                    Don't let MagCynic and his simplistic thinking steer you off the track. Have you asked how long nuclear waste material is dangerous after it's use? Which states will store it or want to? Will it be(waste material) be safe from natural disasters? Will the waste material be safe from infiltrating our natural underwater springs? Then there is this:

                    March 17, 2011 03:00 PM
                    What No One Ever Told You About The Long-Term Effects Of Three Mile Island's Nuclear Accident
                    By Susie Madrak

                    (Pay particular attention to this part and ask if this could not be a reason that the count from nuclear accidents are so low.)

                    "...Health studies conducted by the Pennsylvania Department of Health, various federal government agencies, and Columbia University supported the nuclear industry claims. The affected citizens contend these studies were sloppy and included people who should not have been counted, excluded many who should have been, or the researchers did not do the necessary follow-up on people who left the area after the accident. The citizens also say study authors uncritically accepted the premise that not enough radiation was released to cause the illnesses people were experiencing, so that even when higher disease rates were found, they were attributed to other factors such as stress or “lifestyle factors" like smoking, drinking, poor diet, or taking too much anti-anxiety medication..."

                    (Then there is this):

                    "According to Sternglass, a student of Albert Einstein's who holds several patents on X-ray technology, the health impacts from the accident were unquestionable, significant, and included a sharp spike in infant deaths and hypothyroidism. Dr. Gordon MacLeod, Pennsylvania's Secretary of Health at the time, tried to ensure all health impacts from the accident were fully disclosed. He was fired by then Governor Dick Thornburgh for his efforts. More recently, University of North Carolina epidemiologist Steve Wing reanalyzed the data from the Columbia University study and concluded that people living closer to the path of the radiation cloud developed all types of cancers more frequently. In the areas of greatest fallout, lung cancer rates jumped 400 percent, and leukemia rates climbed 700 percent. These scientists -- and others who question the nuclear orthodoxy -- have all been either drowned out or viciously attacked as biased, unprofessional purveyors of panic with an anti-nuclear axe to grind..."
                    http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/what-no-one-ever-told-you-about-long-


                    The nuclear industry pays a lot of money to keep information from you and to poo-poo reports and studies that question the safety of their industry and have found a willing dupe in MagCynic. No surprise as he is always a willing defender of Beck/Faux.
                    http://www.bing.com/search?q=Nuclear+industry+spends+millions+in+lobbying+and+reports&mkt=en-us&FORM=HPDTLB&PC=HPDTDF







                    Report Abuse
                • Author by wookie (March 21, 2011 11:09 am ET)
                  1 1
                  I can't find anybody who has died as a result of nuclear power.


                  That's because you are an idiot.

                  Three_Mile_Island_accident_health_effects

                  A 2006 study on the standard mortality rate in children in 34 counties downwind of TMI found an increase in the rate (for cancers other than leukemia) from 0.83 (1979–83) to 1.17 (1984–88), meaning a rise from below the national average to above it.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by MagCynic (March 21, 2011 12:24 pm ET)
                    1 2
                    And how many people died due to Three Mile Island?

                    I know the answer already. I'm just seeing if you do, too.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by jonimacaroni1 (March 21, 2011 12:48 pm ET)
                    2 1
                    No other studies have backed up that study or found that the children or adults were adversely affected, except for some additional heart disease issues that they think are related to stress.

                    I've posted that link before to that much more comprehensive study.

                    There's no one in the USA who's been killed as a direct result of a failure at a US commercial nuclear power plant. But it's a bogus, irrelevant fact. It's the potential threat from nuclear power plants that's much more relevant, as well as the problems with the construction cost of those plants and the problem of disposal of the waste.
                    Report Abuse
                • Author by jonimacaroni1 (March 21, 2011 12:24 pm ET)
                  1 1
                  That's totally bogus - you don't think that people died in the construction of any nuclear plants? That no one has ever been killed working on the power lines that come from nuclear plants? That no one was killed on the roads while the tons of concrete that needed to be used was being transported there?

                  Add that to the fact that there hasn't been hardly any construction on any nuclear plants in the USA in the past 40 years, and a comparison of the deaths in that industry versus wind power is a dishonest argument, and totally like your typical argument.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by MagCynic (March 21, 2011 12:35 pm ET)
                    1 2
                    Do some research. More people have died at wind power plants than nuclear power plants. It's a fact.

                    You could argue that the potential for catastrophe is much higher at nuclear power plants, but you can't argue the actual statistics.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by jonimacaroni1 (March 21, 2011 12:53 pm ET)
                      3 1
                      As I fully explained, it's a bogus stat - you're comparing apples and oranges, first off, and you're citing an irrelevant stat for another, since there were people killed during the construction of the plants, and there are people killed travelling to and from nuclear power plants in traffic accidents, and there are people who die working on the power poles and lines that come directly from nuclear power plants.

                      It's a number sourced from a blog, where people didn't cite any deaths indirectly associated with nuclear power plants, but did cite every death indirectly associated with wind power.

                      I can argue both, and I have successfully done so.
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by vysotsky (March 21, 2011 1:25 pm ET)
                      2 1
                      Do some research, MagCynic. By your standard, shouldn't we be most concerned about the number of people who die in incidents related to harnessing fossil fuels for energy?
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by beDecent (March 21, 2011 1:29 pm ET)
                      3 1
                      And even more people have died at oil rigs. Shut 'em down.
                      Report Abuse
    • Author by rawashick (March 21, 2011 11:48 am ET)
      1  
      Conservatives are not against renewable energy. The problem is it inefficient and not cost effective. As technology continues, renewable may become a better source of energy. Right now, we require carbon and nuclear to keep up with the current energy requirements. Start actually watching Fox News and listening to conservatives that the liberals attack. You may be surprised to find out, that the information from conservative media is more accurate than the other media.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by David G (March 21, 2011 12:39 pm ET)
      1 1
      The Right Wing is against renewable energy is because it keeps the same rich people in pollutable energy in control of the $$$ in the energy sector. The Right Wing WACKO'S cannot let anyone else have & make $$$, and who cares abou global warming and pollution?

      They do not even consider that the country that develops clean new energy will stay or become the next great Super Power in the World. It is time to invest in clean energy development, before someone else does...
      Report Abuse
      • Author by What Happens When The Oil Is Gone (March 21, 2011 1:29 pm ET)
        1 3
        That is the dumbest argument I have read yet.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Badtime (March 21, 2011 2:18 pm ET)
          1 1
          What? That the nation that can control it's energy supply and renew it indefinetly won't become a superpower?

          Ultimately, all disputes are over sustenance, land, or energy. Every other reason stems from these things. While David Gs wording may be a bit clunky, his point remains:

          Control the energy, control the nation.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by What Happens When The Oil Is Gone (March 21, 2011 2:32 pm ET)
            1 2
            He said control the energy, control the world.

            The issue with this is the assumption that renewable energy will be able to sustain the globalized world fossil fuels have created.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by LonesomeinNE (March 21, 2011 3:07 pm ET)
      3 1
      I just logged on to this discussion and, after reading all the postings, I was surprised that I never encountered the name "Spain" - as in the country of. According to the latest data, Spain produces 16% of its total electricity by wind power. As anyone who has traveled in Spain knows, there are lot of windmills in the country but it is by no means "overrun" with them. They do not seem to produce any significant health hazard and, with intelligent management, they can, along with other sources, be utilized even though they are not a 100% "all the time" source of power. Actually, no other source is either - nor is demand which fluctuates enormously from season to season and hour to hour within any given day. No one would expect wind to replace all other sources but even 16% like Spain would make an enormous difference.
      Report Abuse