Should we take hope that President Bush is at least addressing renewable energy?

Great Debates
21

By that same logic, “these people” aren’t going to care about profits from oil anyway, as money is nothing as compared to Our Lord yadda yadda.

I disagree, but say you’re right; Unless they’re utterly deluded, a selfish person would take steps to make sure any future energy sources were under their control, too. So Bush would still be likely to promote and look into renewable energy if he were a contemptible selfish ass or simply trying to do what he thinks is in the US’s interest, or somewhere in between - which is my point.

22

i hate making blanket statements like this…but i find myself coming back to say the exact same thing when i sit down and think about it…

the corve value, when i look at it, does seem to be “greed”

of course, some greed is fine/good, but obviously too much or too little of it is very bad.

23

there’s a difference between selfishness, which seems to have laziness in tow…and ambition and greed.

i’d think that a “selfish” person would accumulate goods/wealth, and then sit on it/find a way to keep the flow steady.

an ambitious person would tend to look towards gaining more of this wealth, even though they have a bunch to begin with.

again, i don’t intend to paint all selfish or all ambitious people with such large brushes. what i’m saying is that with “greed” and “selfishness” seems to come another attribute. i suppose it all comes down to semantics.

24

of course, my previous two posts could be seen as conflicting. if they do, tend to disregard the first of the two.

thank you.

25

I think GOP support could definitely materialize. If somehow we find a way to make ethanol a primary source of fuel for the nation’s automobiles many of the crops that would be planted and the income they would generated would be in very Republican mid-west states.

I have no doubt Bush likes making money but he’s already a wealthy man. I think like any President he is looking to history now, especially since he is in his second term. And I think he does recognize that American dependence on foreign oil isn’t the best situation in the world, and considering how important a strong America is to him I don’t think this is suprising.

This may not really become an environmental issue, it may even be opposed by environmentalists as massive fields growing corn or whatever would represent an environmental disaster to many people. Especially considering farming does a lot of polluting in its own right.

I do tend to trust a second term President on policy proposals more than a first termer. I mean, this is his last job he will probably ever have. He may serve on the board of a corporation or something but more than likely this is the last years of Bush’s life as someone who is going to have meaningful effect on the world. I think that’s why many second termers really try to push things they believe perhaps in spite of politics.

Or this could just be a political show, it’s hard to tell. The man is a politician.

26

I think your last statement is a little strong. I think it is true that a core ideal of the Republican Party is that “the Business of America is Business” but there are plenty of even conservative Republicans that believe in long-term growth strategies and developing technologies.
The “Greed is good”, “Profit now” attitude I think is driven by the Corporate Lobbyist influenced Congress.
Is the religious portion of the party really in control of much of the economic policy? I thought they were just driving the social agenda.

On preview:
Martin Hyde: Sure post something rational that I agree with, disabuse my notions about you.

I do think most mainstream environmental groups will support Plug in Hybrids running ethanol85 over oil.
I am talking about Sierra Club, Greenpeace, Clearwater, etc. They are all pushing for ethanol. Petroleum is definitely one of the major sources of pollution in the developed world. Auto’s that greatly reduce emissions is very desired by the environmental groups I am part of.

Jim

27

Such actions would be entirely inconsistent with everything he’s done in the last five years, so I wouldn’t bet on it.

28

I can’t argue with your point. I can hope however.

Jim

29

Many people believe that one’s wealth is a direct reflection of one’s worth in the eyes of God; the two don’t contradict.

[QUOTE= Least Original User Name Ever
]
i hate making blanket statements like this…but i find myself coming back to say the exact same thing when i sit down and think about it…

the corve value, when i look at it, does seem to be “greed”

of course, some greed is fine/good, but obviously too much or too little of it is very bad.
[/QUOTE]
That reminds me of something that the author David Brin has said; one of the qualities of the people presently in charge is insatiability. No amount of money is enough, no tax cut is big enough, no amount of power is enough; they cannot be satisfied.

OK, I’ll narrow my statement a little and say that utter selfishness is a core value of the Republicans who are actually in power. This includes the religious fanatics; that’s just a different form of selfishness.

Doesn’t matter. First, he’s largely a puppet anyway, and second, I suspect that he’s the sort who if he had all the money on the planet but your dollar. he’d want that dollar. Cheney certainly would, and Bush does what he’s told. That’s a pretty standard attitude among the Republican leadership.

30

Unfortunately I agree with your revised post. As the Leadership is Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, DeLay & etc, greedy and corrupt are words that collectively describe them.

Jim

31

As with NCLB – it’s all bullshit or worse unless he’s willing to pony up the federal funds to pay for it.

Which would require rolling back his tax cuts.

You can’t have your cake and eat it.

32

I am going to hope that he and the corporate energy-biz mavens he rubs elbows with think there are big future $$$$ to be made in a forthcoming post-oil era. If greed is the horse that gets us there, I’m all for riding it.

Oh, and if my bus gets hijacked some morning, I’d rather that they put someone at the wheel who can steer and has a destination in mind, even if it’s part of a nefarious plot. Evil wicked schemers at the wheel = immensely preferable to “don’t look now but nobody’s driving the damn bus”

33

So, you’d vote for Lex Luthor over Bush ? :smiley:

34

Bush at least is cognizant that there is a problem – but he still appears totally confused about what the problem is. Oil is only part of it.

From James Howard Kunstler’s “Clusterfuck Nation” column – 2/6/06 – http://www.kunstler.com/mags_diary16.html:

35

Be glad he’s not talking about “organisms” and “chasms”.

Stranger

36

That’s an acceptable pronunciation, Patty. Personally, I prefer it to the alternative (rhymes with “concubine”).

37

My, my. Your objectivity is most refreshing. Fact is, John Walton, one of theSam Walton’s boys, thru his True North LLC, is providing a very large percentage of the funding for photovoltaic solar cells. Between 1999 and mid-2002, he ponied up $58 million (of $80 million total) for this Perrysburg, Ohio research and production facility. www.firstsolar.com gets only about $1 million annually from the U.S. Energy Dept. This facility, already billed as the largest of its type in the world, is currently undergoing another expansion.

38

Too lazy (ok…drunk) to do a search, but haven’t we already discussed/dissected ad nauseum the fact that ethanol production consumes more energy than it yields?

39

No longer true. Ethanol is just now breaking even. It was true until recently.

Jim

40

Furthermore, ther are some developments on the horizon that could actually make ethanol look pretty good. For example, genetically engineered plants that produce an enzyme at the end of their lifecycle that begins the process of breaking down the plant using sunlight as an energy source, in essence making the plants an even better solar collector.

I’ve been down on ethanol for a long time because the pro-ethanol industry made grandiose claims to hide the fact that they were basically using it to get farm subsidies. But reality is starting to catch up to the claims, and there may be something to this.

And I’d like to address the comment above to the effect that whenever Bush says something, a flunky comes out a couple of days later to deny it. The example in question was Bush claiming that the U.S. would cut the need for imported oil by 75% by 2025. The next day, someone came out and said that imported oil wouldn’t really be cut, and everyone took that as an example of the Bush administration essentially lying.

But here’s the deal. Let’s say the U.S. imports 20% of its oil from the middle east. So saying you want to cut that by 75% is essentially saying you’re going to cut oil consumption overall by 15%. Fine and good. But even if your oil consumption is 15% less, you STILL would import as much oil as you can from the middle east, for the simple reason that it’s the cheapest way to get oil. In fact, the total percentage of oil imported from the middle east could go UP, because even though you’re using 15% less oil, you’re still importing as much of the cheap stuff as you can get your hands on. As an example, if the U.S. cut oil consumption by 8)%, then it might import 100% of its oil from the middle east, because it can now meet all its oil needs by using the cheapest source.

The important factor, though, is that if you use 15% less oil, then if you had to, for security reasons say, or if OPEC created a total embargo, you could get all your energy elsewhere and pay what you’re paying today in overall energy costs. So it makes you more secure.

In reality, the oil market is a lot more complex than this. Oil is sold at a single price for the same grade, no matter whether it cost $5/bbl or $30/bbl to produce. But the intricacies of the market are such that the U.S. buys its oil from a whole range of producers, as does everyone else. That won’t change even if you cut your oil consumption in half.