Republican Energy Plan Is A Little Limiting…

Filed in National by on June 10, 2009

… unless you’re a oil, coal, or nuclear industry, then the skies the limit!

geg_impact

Shall not be considered?  Is that an order?  If we don’t consider global warming will that make it… go away?  And they wonder why no one takes them seriously.

h/t Think Progress

Tags: ,

About the Author ()

A stay-at-home mom with an obsession for National politics.

Comments (19)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. anonone says:

    Particularly, you know, if that fish, plant or wildlife happens to be an essential part of our food chain.

  2. cassandra_m says:

    Maybe they mean unless you are burning them for electricity.

  3. pandora says:

    Maybe they could make a law outlawing global warming.

  4. anon says:

    They could rename it “socialist warming.”

  5. The power of wishful thinking.

  6. anonone says:

    On the other hand, if we destroy all the animal and plant life on the planet (including ourselves), the dead biomass will eventually turn to oil for use by the next intelligent life form to evolve here (if one can).

  7. Bob says:

    And how unreasonable is it to keep greenhouse gas issues out of wildlife issues. Would you have us shut down the gas stations to save a mountain rat ?

  8. FSP says:

    Since I made a scrapple comment earlier, would tying it into a production of gas comment be inappropriate at this point?

  9. Bob says:

    Love scrapple, thin and crispy. I’ll accept any gas issues involved gladly 🙂

  10. Von Cracker says:

    one must deep fry scrapple.

    also, conservatives luv to play with words.

  11. You are not being truthful on this matter.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/09/science/earth/09bear.html

    The Obama administration said Friday that it would retain a wildlife rule issued in the last days of the Bush administration that says the government cannot invoke the Endangered Species Act to restrict emissions of greenhouse gases threatening the polar bear and its habitat.

    Polar Bear Protection Updates In essence, the decision means that two consecutive presidents have judged that the act is not an appropriate means of curbing the emissions that scientists have linked to global warming.

    Let’s makeit clear, Obama has lied again. He talked a good line in the campaign and now is backtracking.

    Mike Protack

  12. kavips says:

    Mike

    Again you fail..

    All that the link you provided says: is that it is impossible to halt construction on a concrete plant in Florida, by saying that it will environmentally affect the polar bears in the arctic ice cap.

    Obama is applying common sense that says all environmental impact statements made in the US cannot use the plight of the polar bears to stop construction. That’s a no brainer if you ask me.

    So actually your incompetence has again proved Obama is far superior to any thing Republicans had tried to offer…

    We are fortunate to have a competent party in charge for a change and to have regulated Republicans off to the sidelines from where they can be heard only by linking New York Times articles to Mainstream Blogs…

    Read your links first, silly. Or ask Jason 330. From what I remember, he is the “polar bear expert”…

    lol

  13. callerRick says:

    China has 12 nuclear power plants under construction, India 6, Russia 8, Korea 5. France and Japan operate 59 and 53 plants, respectively.

    Obviously, the rest of the world believes that fission is the future.

    If we’re going to promote electric vehicles, we’d better have a plan to charge them. While I have no problem with utilizing new technology (wind turbines, solar, etc.), the average cunsumer is concerned with price per Kw or Btu.

  14. Frieda Berryhill says:

    Rick
    “Obviously, the rest of the world believes that fission is the future.”
    The countries building nuclear plants do not have stock holder owned Utilities .
    Why aren’t we building them? The investment is too risky. You can’t have it both ways, nationalize ( ah! Socialism) or sell stock and let the market decide. And the market said NO.

  15. callerRick says:

    The investment is too risky. You can’t have it both ways, nationalize ( ah! Socialism) or sell stock and let the market decide. And the market said NO.

    Why did they say NO? The cost of excessive governmental regulation, perhaps?

    Either way, the rest of the world couldn’t care less what we do….they are moving forward with nuclear energy.

  16. cassandra_m says:

    They are moving forward with nuclear energy because their governments are paying for it. So you want the US government to pay to build nuclear plants here?

    And the market keeps saying no to building plants here because of the risks — not so much regulatory any more. If these power companies can’t raise money in the traditional capital markets for their plants, I’d say you know everything you need to about the viability of these things.

  17. callerRick says:

    If they’re ‘risky’ and ‘non-viable,’ why is the rest of the world building them?

  18. cassandra_m says:

    Because their governments are taking most of the risk. Which is usually what is means to have your government, you know, pay for it.

  19. Frieda Berryhill says:

    Rick
    1.) Nukes are not insurable, so in case of an accident YOU pay through the Price Anderson Act. Look at your Home owner Policy, it tells you “not Applicable in case of a N.Accident.”
    Cost incalculable. Look up Price Anderson.
    http://www.geocities.com/mothersalert/crac.html
    2.) Nuclear waste, lethal for 100.000 years (yes PU has a halflife of 25.000 years) is left for future generation. Cost, incalculable.

    You are right Cassandra. Now France has to negotiate with Russia to take their nuke waste. I can not imagine what this will eventually cost them But the French citizen are catching on now, its getting interesting.