admin answers:

The word “PROGRESS” is apparently ignored when right-wing regressives try to bad-mouth the progressives within the Democratic party. The new-wave Progressives are all about seeing this nation progress towards fiscal sanity and a fully restored manufacturing jobs base in the field of renewable energy resources (see recovery.gov for more details).

‘Twas Republican right-wingers who decided to DEREGULATE (which means remove all oversight, all systems of checks and balances, all consumer protections), so when the Obama administration sought to set up government oversight policies to prevent abuses by financial institutions, Wall Street, or credit agencies in order to prevent any more abuses or needs for future bailouts, why did the Republicans all vote “nay” after first trying to filibuster the consumer-protecting legislations?

The word “controlling” is not technically correct, by the way. The 419 privately-owned banks that needed Bush/Cheney’s WELFARE BAILOUTS in 2007 and 2008 had been so thoroughly DEREGULATED that even with these taxpayer funds meant to be used to help home-owners refinance the bankster CEOs instead gave themselves multi-million-dollar salaries and multi-million-dollar bonuses for bankrupting their firms—BOTTOMLESS-PIT GREED and CORRUPTION for which some of them should be in prison! Check out the Dodd-Frank financial reforms that have been signed into law—a decent beginning but more reforms (and more oversight) is needed. Progressives want oversight of these corporations run amok, that’s all—and this does not make Democrats or any faction of the Democratic party “anti corporatist”! To the contrary, we Democrats favor having no more OUTSOURCING by greed-driven corporate leaders and want those jobs brought home again. We also want trillionaire and billionaire corporations to start contributing their FAIR SHARE in tax revenues (the 39% that was in place during Bill Clinton’s eight years of PROSPERITY) so that they are contributing to this nation’s recovery. That is PRO-CORPORATION in the long run. The Federal Reserve is not the villain Libertarians try to claim…but oversight and regulation is necessary to make sure this remains true.

admin answers:

Sure.

Coal and Oil are nonrenewable resources. Once these are gone there will be no more available. We can’t make more oil or coal on a massive scale faster than we use them in our life times. (both formed over millions of years.)

Renewable energy being energy that can be replenished. Plants (a lot of clothing is made of cotton) for example, are renewable. We can grow more plants. Technically speaking water is a renewable resource. The problem is only 3% of water is fresh, and of that 3% only 1% is available for use. It absolutely needs to be reserved. Poisoning it would be bad for obvious reasons and we do that all the time. On the other hand, we can also treat water and reuse it, and eventually water will clean itself through the water cycle (but at the rate which we ruin it, that’s not an argument for wasting or poisoning it.)

Sunlight and Wind are some examples of Inexhaustible resources. We can use solar energy and wind energy for ever and ever and these things will not run out. (Well, if you want to get technical, we’ll have solar energy until the sun dies. You know, billions of years from now. Yeah. Doesn’t really count ^-^) These are also considered renewable resources.

Renewable resources

admin answers:

I support energy conservation first over efforts to substitute other forms of energy, such as atomic or ethanol. I believe geometric reductions are possible in our use of energy without serious loss of quality of life. Ford bringing out a 2008 Thunderbird, with 300 horsepower days before the President begs Saudi Kings for cheaper oil is criminal, in my opinion. The US car fleet of SUVs and gas hogs makes us pigs in the world’s eyes.

Second, I support population control and population reduction before aggressively funding unproven technological changes to further reduce our use of polluting energy sources.

Third, I support public examination of our core values, to find ways to support all of these changes needed to protect our earth. Without an understanding of this, it’s not likely we will be able change our ways without a Police State, which is far less desirable than the enthusiastic and proactive support of the people.

After these measures are embraced, I support evolutionary changes that might involve new technologies. But what I find now is that radical technological changes are frequently proposed today, by sophisticated scientists, without the slightest thought about what their collateral effects on the earth might be. It’s like hopping from frying pan to fire. Ethanol is but one example of this, which has the potential to seriously harm the environment (and the world’s food chain). Another is to seed the oceans with iron to produce an abundance of algae that would reduce CO2. What are they thinking? Or not thinking (about ocean fisheries).

admin answers:

Because Clinton was in bed with big corporations like Enron…

“Enron, however, has been at the forefront of the global-warming debate, and was an early and strong supporter of Kyoto and Kyoto’s proponents:

In January 1997, the company announced formation of the Enron Renewable Energy Corporation to offer alternatives to the “$250 billion U.S. Electricity market.” Renewable Energy CEO Tom White supported President Clinton’s $6.3 million plan to fight global warming.

Later that year, Enron CEO Kenneth Lay was named a member of President Clinton’s “Council on Sustainable Development,” joining Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, EPA Administrator Carol Browner, and Fred Krupp, executive director of the Environmental Defense Fund. The task force also included representatives from the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Federation, and the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The National Environmental Trust, a public-relations organization heavily funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts to promote environmental policies, worked with Kenneth Lay to place pro-Kyoto editorials (under Lay’s signature) in the Houston Chronicle, the Austin-American Statesman, and the Salt Lake City Tribune.

When President Clinton called for a gradual reduction in greenhouse gases, to lay the groundwork for U.S. Backing of Kyoto, Enron executives expressed their support. In an Atlanta Constitution article, Enron Senior Vice President Terry Thorn called the announcement “a measured, appropriate action plan given what we know today about global warming. This will unleash the ingenuity of American business to find creative solutions.”

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA384.html

I guess it’s too bad that Enron was roped in by the Bush Justice Department. Just think of what a great supporter those wonderful people at Enron were – the environment has lost a true friend… :sniff: