Your Questions About Sustainable Energy Fund
William asks…
A multitude of Global Climate Change solutions have been proposed. Which do you support?
This is going to be a long, laborious process. In answering this question, feel free to go beyond token mitigation measures that attempt to staunch the bleeding, as it were, and share some of the bolder approaches that will change the business-as-usual way of life that got us into this mess. Share some of the innovative, sustainable proposals that will promote new, greener technologies. A technological revolution to mop up problems associated with the industrial revolution, perhaps?
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).
John asks…
How come global warming was not a problem during the clinton administration?
but when a republican is elected it is a big deal. I thought this problem was starting before clinton according to some people.
I mean why was there not hype about it. now days you hear global warming this global warming that.
I know you may say the AL Bore sorry i mean gore did stuff before but it was not all hyped up. I guess the demacrats will do what they do best blame bush.
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:
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
