Comments on: A Conservative Conservationist http://www.terrarossa.com/a-conservative-conservationist/ Where Conservatives Consider a New Energy Future Mon, 13 Oct 2008 18:13:13 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Arthur Lungi http://www.terrarossa.com/a-conservative-conservationist/#comment-284 Arthur Lungi Fri, 02 Mar 2007 20:32:05 +0000 http://www.terrarossa.com/?p=100#comment-284 It's insane how politicians use energy as a political tool. Our population has grown and the number of auto and energy demands have increase, yet we haven't built one new refinery or nuclear power plan in over thirty years. Plus we have many new oil reserves, especially in the Gulf and Alaska. Off the top of my head the following represents our use of energy, Solar 2% Wind 1% Hydro 5% Nuclear 20% Oil/Coal 73% Technology has reduced the amount of energy used and created greater efficiency. Conservation is actively engaged nationwide, but it has a limit to actually how much it can reduce energy consumption. Oil & coal reserves are plentiful in our hemisphere, but politicians all talk about renewable energy sources as the immediate solution to our dependency on Middle East Oil. Renewable energy will not reduce consumption of oil/coal enough to make a difference now or 50 years from now unless a practical alternative to the internal combustion engine is developed and marketed at a price consumers can afford. In the end, the marketplace will decide on what we will use for energy. Presently, it's oil. The government cannot force restrictions on energy use to comply with a politicians "wet dream" about the brave new world of "green energy use." I have thoroughly researched global warming and I have concluded the "so called science" is inconclusive. Therefore, policy decisions cannot be made based on assumptions, possibilities, or how hairs stand up on the back of one's head. This plays into energy. It's a prefect excuse not to explore for more oil. The Yaoto Agreement is a politically correct proposal to limit the U.S. production of "so-called" green house gases, but with little restrictions on the rest of the world. Stupid. How can any sensible person go along with such a one-sided proposal based upon inconclusive information. Oil is a miracle of nature that has increased the forward progress of mankind and it will continue to do so in the future. In short, human nature is our own worst enemy. The greed, ignorance, and short sided views of clearly unqualified Senators and Representatives will continue to be an obstacle in creating an energy independent U.S. This is the solution is for the electorate to place men and women of vision and not ideologues and socialist as our representatives. We need to drill, conserve, develop, invest, use nuclear, and get a fusion/Hydrogen auto prototype in place for mass production in 15 years. Other advanced possibilities include a fusion reactor sometime around 2050. That will solve all energy problems. It’s insane how politicians use energy as a political tool. Our population has grown and the number of auto and energy demands have increase, yet we haven’t built one new refinery or nuclear power plan in over thirty years. Plus we have many new oil reserves, especially in the Gulf and Alaska. Off the top of my head the following represents our use of energy,

Solar 2%
Wind 1%
Hydro 5%
Nuclear 20%
Oil/Coal 73%

Technology has reduced the amount of energy used and created greater efficiency. Conservation is actively engaged nationwide, but it has a limit to actually how much it can reduce energy consumption.

Oil & coal reserves are plentiful in our hemisphere, but politicians all talk about renewable energy sources as the immediate solution to our dependency on Middle East Oil. Renewable energy will not reduce consumption of oil/coal enough to make a difference now or 50 years from now unless a practical alternative to the internal combustion engine is developed and marketed at a price consumers can afford.

In the end, the marketplace will decide on what we will use for energy. Presently, it’s oil. The government cannot force restrictions on energy use to comply with a politicians “wet dream” about the brave new world of “green energy use.”

I have thoroughly researched global warming and I have concluded the “so called science” is inconclusive. Therefore, policy decisions cannot be made based on assumptions, possibilities, or how hairs stand up on the back of one’s head. This plays into energy. It’s a prefect excuse not to explore for more oil.

The Yaoto Agreement is a politically correct proposal to limit the U.S. production of “so-called” green house gases, but with little restrictions on the rest of the world. Stupid. How can any sensible person go along with such a one-sided proposal based upon inconclusive information.

Oil is a miracle of nature that has increased the forward progress of mankind and it will continue to do so in the future.

In short, human nature is our own worst enemy. The greed, ignorance, and short sided views of clearly unqualified Senators and Representatives will continue to be an obstacle in creating an energy independent U.S.

This is the solution is for the electorate to place men and women of vision and not ideologues and socialist as our representatives. We need to drill, conserve, develop, invest, use nuclear, and get a fusion/Hydrogen auto prototype in place for mass production in 15 years. Other advanced possibilities include a fusion reactor sometime around 2050. That will solve all energy problems.

]]> By: Terra Rossa » More on Conservative Conservation http://www.terrarossa.com/a-conservative-conservationist/#comment-279 Terra Rossa » More on Conservative Conservation Fri, 02 Mar 2007 20:18:57 +0000 http://www.terrarossa.com/?p=100#comment-279 [...] Last week, contributor Tucker Eskew wrote about Governor Mark Sanford’s op-ed in the Washington Post, a forward-thinking piece about the need for conservatives to engage in the environmental debate, or eventually “find ourselves on the menu.” [...] [...] Last week, contributor Tucker Eskew wrote about Governor Mark Sanford’s op-ed in the Washington Post, a forward-thinking piece about the need for conservatives to engage in the environmental debate, or eventually “find ourselves on the menu.” [...]

]]> By: Daniel http://www.terrarossa.com/a-conservative-conservationist/#comment-245 Daniel Wed, 28 Feb 2007 20:57:58 +0000 http://www.terrarossa.com/?p=100#comment-245 It seems that Sanford's main concern about climate change is that ocean levels are rising. If humans are causing sea levels to rise, would it make sense if sea level rise would have accelerated as temperatures rose? The best data we have (from satellites) shows us that sea level rise has not increased. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=859 The problem is that sea level has been rising for the last 18,000 years. Humans, if exerting any influence, have only exerted a very small influence? It seems that Sanford’s main concern about climate change is that ocean levels are rising. If humans are causing sea levels to rise, would it make sense if sea level rise would have accelerated as temperatures rose? The best data we have (from satellites) shows us that sea level rise has not increased. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=859 The problem is that sea level has been rising for the last 18,000 years. Humans, if exerting any influence, have only exerted a very small influence?

]]>