Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Democratic Leaders Poised to Sabotage Hope for Renewable Energy

By Kelpie Wilson, TruthOut.org. Posted November 13, 2007.


Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid said that they would jettison the renewable energy provisions in both the House and Senate versions of the 2007 energy bill, in the interest of passing a bill before the Thanksgiving.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
What Can the Morass of the 1970s Tell Us About the Current Economic Crisis?
Alejandro Reuss

DrugReporter:
Why Are We Locking Up Traumatized Veterans for Their Addictions Instead of Offering Them Treatment?
Penny Coleman

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Does the House Bill's Public Option Kill Off the Senate's?
Booman

Immigration:
Immigrants and Health-Care: What Part of LEGAL Doesn't Washington Understand?
Marielena Hincapié

Media and Technology:
Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh Stoking GOP Civil War
Eric Boehlert

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Obama Is Up Against in His Own Branch of Government
Russ Baker

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
"Precious" Star Claims the Spotlight
Emily Wilson

Rights and Liberties:
Ugly Truth: Most U.S. Kids Sentenced to Die In Prison Are Black
Liliana Segura

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Radioactive Wastewater in New York Raises More Concerns About Oil Drilling
Abrahm Lustgarten

World:
Afghanistan Is Worse Off Than Ever, Thanks to the Sham Army We're Propping Up
Chris Hedges

More stories by Kelpie Wilson

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Last Thursday, Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid said that they would jettison the renewable energy provisions in both the House and Senate versions of the 2007 energy bill in the interest of passing a bill before the Thanksgiving recess begins on November 17.

Republicans have been holding up action on the bill for months now, refusing to participate in conference committee meetings to reconcile the House and Senate versions. The big sticking points for Republicans have been support for renewable energy and ending billions of dollars in subsidies for oil companies. Democrats would like to use the oil subsidy money to support solar and wind power.

Representatives of the renewable energy industry were dismayed by the Democrats' abandonment. "This is basically Congress delivering an early Christmas present to the American public -- and it's a lump of coal," said Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA). "We are feeling disgusted because this energy bill goes right back to maintaining the status quo."

The renewable energy provisions in the bill come in two forms: a Renewable Electricity Standard that requires utilities to supply 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources like solar and wind, and tax provisions, including a production tax credit for wind power and a tax credit to encourage investment in solar power equipment.

While the Renewable Electricity Standard would be a new federal program (31 states already have some kind of renewable mandate), the tax incentives for solar and wind would continue programs already in place. Losing these tax breaks would be devastating to the renewable energy industry, said solar lobbyist Scott Sklar of the Stella Group: "It will cause sales and investment to implode."

By giving up on renewable energy, lawmakers are losing an opportunity to increase energy security and strengthen the economy. Last week the American Solar Energy Society released a report on the economic benefits of investment in renewable energy, finding that major investments in renewables and energy efficiency retrofits could produce 40 million jobs and generate $4.5 trillion in US revenue by 2030.

The latest turn in the energy bill would actually force the country a few steps backward. Scott Sklar said that unlike in past years, there is little chance that the renewable tax incentives will be attached to another bill for passage this year.

If those tax incentives are lost, Americans will feel the pain quickly. Randall Swisher, head of the American Wind Energy Association said that the rapid growth of the American wind industry would go into a stall. "Getting into 2008, we will start to see uncertainty creep in in terms of getting projects financed and, even more importantly, attracting manufacturers to this country, bringing with them the jobs that are a critical part of what this industry can deliver for the future of this country," said Swisher.

The Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) was one of the provisions that passed only in the House version of the energy bill. Some Republicans, along with President Bush, have strongly opposed the mandate. Senator Domenici, ranking member of the Senate energy committee, cited complaints from utilities in the Southeast that they lacked renewable resources required to meet a 15 percent standard, but renewable energy experts say it won't be that challenging.

Domenici and some other Republicans want to keep the current state-by-state approach. They say it makes the most of regional differences in renewable resources. Scott Sklar warns that a strictly regional approach would shrink the potential of renewable energy.

"If the goal is to build a national, sustainable set of clean energy industries, the entire US market needs to be included," Sklar said. "Blending tax credits, an RES and national interconnection standards is the core government tool box to accelerate and enhance these technologies and build these industries. With energy imports increasing, prices increasing, climate change emissions increasing, our electric infrastructure aging, now is not the time to balkanize energy efficiency and production, but [to] set goals and nurture new technologies and new markets."

Republican maneuvers to kill the energy bill also came to light last week when Senator Domenici introduced a pair of amendments to the farm bill now being debated in the Senate. Domenici wants to migrate two of his favored energy provisions -- the ethanol mandate and $50 billion in nuclear power loan guarantees -- into the more viable farm bill. The loan guarantee title is called "loan guarantees for renewable fuel facilities," and never mentions nuclear power specifically. Dave Roberts, a writer at the green magazine Grist, called the move "sneaky."

With agribusiness lobbying hard for it, transferring the ethanol mandate to the farm bill would weaken bipartisan support for the energy bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters last week that the language should stay in the energy bill and that Democrats were going to "do an energy package separate from the farm bill."

With the Democratic leadership willing to sacrifice renewable energy provisions to pass an energy bill, what will be left? One controversial provision that may make it to the final bill is a watered-down version of the Senate's auto fuel efficiency standard. This provision has a lot going for it politically.

First, it has the support of President Bush and many Republicans. In an October 15 letter to Speaker Pelosi, Bush outlined a framework for an energy bill that would get his support. It would not include a Renewable Electricity Standard, but it would "reform and strengthen the fuel economy standard for cars."

In the letter, Bush then goes on to spell out the loopholes he wants inserted into a fuel economy standard. There must be separate standards for cars and light trucks (no holding SUVs to high standards) and there must be a cost-benefit analysis safety valve.

Fuel economy for cars is also polling very well. A bipartisan poll conducted last week found that voters connect better fuel efficiency with national security. Pollster Mark Mellman said: "The overwhelming support for CAFE standards cuts across all the traditional demographics in this country." Overall, 86 percent of voters said they support requiring automakers to increase fuel economy -- 90 percent of Democrats, 83 percent of independents and 83 percent of Republicans. Only health care costs and the Iraq war show similar levels of concern at 79 percent and 72 percent respectively.

Passing a weak fuel economy standard may let both the parties say they have done something about energy security, but it won't do much to build a renewable energy economy for the future.

But some Democrats are still willing to fight for the renewable energy provisions. Colorado Congressman Mark Udall said that he will meet with Speaker Pelosi this Wednesday about the energy bill.

Judith Kohler, writing for The Associated Press, reports that Udall believes support for renewable energy is a more important priority for the energy bill than increasing the CAFE standard. He is also meeting with senators to share his experiences with Colorado's successful Renewable Electricity Standard and to reassure senators from Southern states that energy experts believe they will be able to meet a Renewable Electricity Standard.

Udall is co-chair of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus in the House. Referring to his work on the House version of the energy bill that passed last August, he said, "Those of us who fought really hard in August are not going to rest until the final decision is made."

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: congress, environment, renewable energy

Kelpie Wilson is Truthout's environment editor. Trained as a mechanical engineer, she embarked on a career as a forest protection activist, then returned to engineering as a technical writer for the solar power industry. She is the author of Primal Tears, an eco-thriller.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The Real Loss
Posted by: Jeff Hoffman on Nov 15, 2007 12:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"By giving up on renewable energy, lawmakers are losing an opportunity to increase energy security and strengthen the economy."

Maybe. Who cares? What we are losing is a chance to do a lot less environmental harm. That's infinitely more important than economic concerns.

This sellout by the Democratic leadership is a perfect example of why some people say that there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans. There is, of course, but there are far more similarities than differences, which shows why we need a lot more parties in Congress and proportional representation so we can get them there.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yes, so? Posted by: Rune
» RE: The Real Loss Posted by: Knot_Rich
» RE: The Real Loss Posted by: motamanx
Pelosi and Reid...
Posted by: oregoncharles on Nov 15, 2007 1:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
really, really want to lose the next election, don't they?

How many times do they think they can stab their core in the back and not suffer repercussions?

Let me tell you about the last two days I've had. Two different lifelong Democrats came to my town, seeking Green Party nominations for national office. One was Cynthia McKinney, running for President. You'll hear lots more about her. One you've never heard of, and neither had I, but Darlene Hooley (D-OR, 4th District) is going to wish she hadn't.

They are just the tip of a breaking wave.

So thank you, Nancy and Harry. We couldn't do it without you.

And what they're doing is utterly inexcusable. One of these days, Cindy Sheehan will be Speaker, instead.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

corportocracy political games
Posted by: lclark on Nov 15, 2007 5:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here we go again!
The Democrats will give up the renewable energy support in the 2007 energy bill so that it is not ‘held up’. They can blame the Republicans for not supporting reducing subsidies to big oil. So the bill will be
Passed that just maintains the status quo!
Significant national support for renewable energy would clean the air, create good technical and construction jobs, reduce the trade deficit, reduce our national dependence on foreign countries and multinational corporations.
We could have a national effort that could have all our electricity generated from solar and wind in 10 years and bring on those electric cars the Japanese have developed and are waiting to market.
Instead, the phony conflict between the two handmaidens of the corportocracy will keep us tethered to limited, polluting, and control energy sources.
Disgusting!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who is really to blame?
Posted by: motamanx on Nov 15, 2007 6:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If it's the Republicans whose refusal to enter renewable energy clauses into the bill that's holding things up, why does the headline seem to blame the Democrats?

Why is Pelosi all about image and not about substance?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Democrats started this a long time ago when FDR
Posted by: maxpayne on Nov 15, 2007 6:33 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
signed the overtaxation on cannibas bill and allowed Big Oil/Gas/Coal/Auto/Chemical to choke any hope of alternative renewables such as solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, hemp, etc ... showing up in the "market". Face it, there is no capitalism or this country would not be forced to chose between nothing vs petro. Repeat after me "RIGGED CAPITALISM" ! And to make matters worse, half the Democrats to say the least are owned by Big Oil/Gas/Coal/Auto/Chemical even today !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Imagine a New Future
Posted by: djnoll on Nov 15, 2007 6:34 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Imagine a new Congress in 2009: Filled to the brim in the House with Independents and one-third of the Senate is Independents. These are people beholden only to the People of the United States, not corporations. People who believe that we should have a healthy environment in which to live; education for our children that will make them creative and competitive in the economy; health care for everyone, not just the rich; and a Congress that passes bills that cannot be vetoed by the President because it does not serve the corporate interests.

This is possible, but only if we come together and vote out the likes of Pelosi and Reid and elect Independents who can work towards those goals. Either vote for your local Independent candidate or run yourself. It can be done, it must be done, and it must happen NOW!

http://www.standanddeliveramerica.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

idiots
Posted by: bunnyday on Nov 15, 2007 7:58 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
pelosi and reid have done nothing to live up to our expectations of taking back our country. the voters will show them exactly how disappointed we are come next november.
as lee iacocca said, "...how much clean air do we really need?"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Reed and Pelosi
Posted by: thekidde on Nov 15, 2007 7:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
need a boot up their asses. Didn't they get the message in November '06?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Question
Posted by: NoPCZone on Nov 15, 2007 8:02 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Someone remind me exactly why we elected a majority of Democrats to Congress last year?

1-Some wanted the war ended. Instead we got the surge after the Dems caved.

2- Some were most worried about civil liberties, torture and such. Instead, the Dems caved and gave Bush everything he wanted.

3- Some wanted impeachment now. Pelosi said it was off the table even before she assumed the Speaker's office.

Now we hear that Renewable energy will be jettisoned so that they can clear the docket before Thanksgiving. Just why do they think we sent them there in the first place?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Without a 2/3 rule
Posted by: MeridaLady on Nov 15, 2007 8:41 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't understand why this is so difficult to understand. Without a 2/3 vote in the Congress & House the Democrats can't do anything!
Can't even over-ride a Bushy veto. And he will veto anything that isn't supportive of his croneys.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Without a 2/3 rule Posted by: veenstra
great idea
Posted by: Grandma Crabby on Nov 15, 2007 9:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I got a great idea! Let's base our economy on oil. Let's ignore alternative sources for decades so the oil companies can get rich polluting us all. Personally, I can hardly wait for an iceberg to melt on my head. And have you ever tasted roasted penguin? Yummy! Make sure and add lots of garlic to the little critter before ya roast him! Then, let's start a war for oil and kill a bunch of people so we don't have to do anything sensible like look to the sun and wind for energy. I mean solar and wind are for those damn tree huggers and we'd rather run over innocent women and children with our gas guzzling SUVs and feel noble when we switch light bulbs.
www.VideoProductionTips.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What is an 11% approval rating saying about Congress?
Posted by: mom'z the word on Nov 15, 2007 10:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is saying if I had a choice in November I would vote NONE OF THE ABOVE. But because a corrupt 2 party system owned and operated by big bucks, picks who we can vote for at a convention I am not invited to, we still and always end up with a choice not of my choosing. It's the politicians choice, not mine. If I really had a voice and a choice I would write in NONE OF THE ABOVE. I firmly believe that the right to vote is the hallmark of the first amendment’s right to free speech. At no other time am I allowed to freely, openly, and without fear of retribution, or harassment able to express myself than when I mark that secret ballot and put it in that locked box. By law, the Voting Rights Act of 1964, that vote MUST be counted, tabulated and recorded as votes cast. The majority of votes cast, which is 50 plus one, wins. According to the polls the majority, if they voted their conscience and wrote in NONE OF THE ABOVE would win by a landslide.

NONE OF THE ABOVE is the bloodless revolution. In fact that is what voting is all about. It is a changing of the guard every 2,4, and 6 years without a shot being fired. The problem of late is we are not freely expressing ourselves by voting our conscience but rather we are being corralled, hogtied, and force-fed a meal ticket that is going to kill us. NONE OF THE ABOVE IS MY CHOICE and anyone that tells me otherwise is telling a lie.

Would there be problems trying to write in NONE OF ABOVE on a computer that does not offer that option? You bet. But that only means the problem is now on the table and must be addressed. A write in vote cast by a registered voter on an official ballot issued by the Secretary of State is a right guaranteed by our Constitution. It must be counted, tabulated, and recorded by the Secretary of State.

And what happens if NONE OF THE ABOVE wins? Well, now it gets interesting. Things have changed. Now voters realize they can make a difference by voting and that is what this is all about. Frankly, I think any registered voter would do a better job of representing me than any career politician. So I would randomly draw a name from the registered voters list and write that name in. No one, no matter how hard they tried could do as bad a job at representing me than the current lock step politicians now in office.

NONE OF THE ABOVE has my vote.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nationalize American Oil Industry...!
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on Nov 15, 2007 10:48 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nationalize the American Oil Industry...!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

tree-spiking reality
Posted by: DaBear on Nov 15, 2007 12:03 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's all this is, pouring sand in the tank, spitting into the wind just cuz its fun. Every damn one of the aristocracy in power needs to be hauled out to their mansions, their furniture thrown onto the lawns and lit up. During the bonfire, a little homegrown hazing needs to happen to the aristocrats who posed as "leaders"... just to remind 'em what we think of this shite.

By not making the necessary conversions to renewable power, and not de-centralizing the grid, we've just peed into the drinking water of our children and their grandchildren. Good work, 'Merkuh, god bless ya.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why no mention of John Dingell?
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Nov 15, 2007 12:18 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's the Democratic chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and a big recipient of donations from General Motors.

Of course, the Republicans are the ones who are really blocking renewable energy, with the help of a handful of Democrats who are in the pockets of the oil, coal and electric utility lobbies.

Considering the central role that Dingell has played in assisting the Republican agenda, it's odd that this article doesn't mention him. This issue is going almost completely unreported by the corporate press. The New York TIme had some coverage of the bill particulars:

FUEL EFFICIENCY The single most effective way to address the problem of oil imports and consumption is to improve the efficiency of cars and light trucks, which use more than two-thirds of all the oil burned in the United States. Efficiency standards have changed little in 30 years. The Senate bill mandates an ambitious 40 percent improvement by 2020. The House ducked the issue [Dingell in action]

RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY The House bill requires utilities to generate 15 percent of their power from renewable sources like wind by 2020. Republicans, pressured by a few big utilities like the Southern Company, blocked a similar provision in the Senate. Almost two dozen states have already figured out that this is both good for the environment and good for the economy and have enacted renewable energy standards, which will create jobs, stabilize natural gas prices and reduce global warming emissions.

TAXING BIG OIL The House rolled back some of the far too generous tax breaks granted to the oil industry in the 2005 energy bill. The proceeds would be used to fund renewable energy intitiatives. The House bill also contains some modest but overdue environmental protections for sensitive Western lands threatened by oil and gas drilling.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Help me RECALL Pelosi, and Feinstein
Posted by: common intelligence on Nov 15, 2007 8:53 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They are the biggest sabatours of the democratic party.

They have undermined most every effort to "take back America".

Like the effort to "not give wiretapping communication co's a get out of jail card free ticket".

Like not supporting impeachment of Cheney.(or Bush)*
Like voting in Muckacy as Attorny General.
Like giving Bush more money.

These primary two are the flies in the ointment.
RECALL both. They are my dirty shorts!

* But I guess it'd be pretty scare to have Cheney and Bush impeached and then have Pelosi for President!

So this is why we need Pelosi out!

Harry Reid, well he just goes along with Pelosi. He's really been ineffectual, same as John Conyers who's turned tail.

Man I think we should all write in Feingold for President. He's the only one beside Kacunich worth a breath of truth.

SO who's in! Let's start the process now for the November election!
We need a whole lot of signatures.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Now...now everyone
Posted by: Bosquésillo on Nov 15, 2007 9:30 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When "they" figure out how to make fortunes and tax the sun and wind, then we'll see a solar and wind power industry ... not a moment sooner. ;)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The #1 carbon dioxide emitter is coal fired power plants.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 16, 2007 11:24 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How do coal fired power plants get ahead of transportation [cars
and other vehicles] in carbon emissions? Gasoline, diesel fuel,
etc. are half hydrogen. For example, octane is C8H18. To figure
out what fraction of the energy is from burning the carbon, you
have to look up the heat of formation of carbon dioxide and the
heat of formation of water. It takes 1 carbon to make one CO2,
but it takes 2 hydrogens to make 1 H2O. You can do the
arithmetic and apportion the energy between the carbon and the
hydrogen. You have to subtract the energy required to break
down the octane into atoms. It is easier to remove the hydrogens
than it is to separate the carbons, so the energy subtracted gets
apportioned too.
Coal is almost pure carbon, except for the URANIUM,
ARSENIC, LEAD, MERCURY, Antimony, Cobalt, Nickel,
Copper, Selenium, Barium, Fluorine, Silver, Beryllium, Iron,
Sulfur, Boron, Titanium, Cadmium, Magnesium, Calcium,
Manganese, Vanadium, Chlorine, Aluminum, Chromium,
Molybdenum and Zinc that are coal's impurities. Even though
transportation uses more energy, coal fired power plants put more
CO2 into the air.

Transportation isn't even the second largest CO2 emitter.
Industrial processes are. The largest CO2 emitter of the industrial
processes is concrete making even though the energy used is less.
The first step in concrete making is heating limestone [calcium
carbonate] to drive off the carbon dioxide to make calcium oxide.
Coal is burned to make the heat, but the limestone is the greater
source of CO2. Other industrial processes include steel making,
metal casting, etc.

The easiest way to make the biggest reduction in CO2 emissions
is to convert all coal fired power plants to nuclear. So get over
your paranoid fears of all things nuclear and get it done.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The rich and the politicians will die just like everybody else
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 16, 2007 11:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do you understand what the word "extinct" means? It means that, if
we keep burning FOSSIL fuels containing CARBON, EVERY PERSON will be
DEAD. THERE WILL BE ZERO SURVIVORS. EXTINCTION means NO
MORE HOMO SAPIENS, EVER. NOT EVEN the worst possible nuclear war,
a "general exchange" between the United States and the old Soviet Union could
achieve the extinction of Homo Sapiens. That would mean exploding 40,000 H
bombs all at once in the old days or maybe only 20,000 H bombs now.

The simultaneous deaths of 6,400,000,000 people would not even be noticeable in
the geologic record. Human population would rebound too fast for the dip to be
noticeable in the rocks. But extinction would clearly be noticed by some future
space alien or future intelligent earth species geologist. He would find no more
humans after the extinction event.

In the second place your paranoid fears of nuclear power are just that, paranoid,
irrational, crazy, the product of mental illness, ignorance and coal industry
propaganda. And yes, I know something about things nuclear. I am a physicist
with experience in the Army's lead lab for nuclear weapons effects. So, do I need
to post 10 more posts to prove it or will you read my posts on past articles before
making a fool of yourself?

Please also read my past posts on the subject of the extinction we are headed for in
something like 200 years if we don't stop burning carbon. And yes, I like wind,
solar, hydro and geothermal energy. Is there a need to repeat once again that they
are inadequate to meet our needs?

PS: To be a "fossil" fuel it has to contain fossils if it is a solid. Coal contains
many fossils, mostly of plants. Oil is a liquid, but oil shale should contain fossils.
Uranium is NOT a fossil fuel. There is no guarantee of finding fossils
anywhere near a uranium mine.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Typical
Posted by: raywigton on Nov 19, 2007 4:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I didn't elect the leaders of the house and senate. I didn't elect the committee chairs either and neither did you. These people who we are stuck with have consistently talked tough and then given up everything to king george. I think that even if we had a democrat in the white house, pelosi and reed would fail us. It's the only thing beyond talk that they can do consistently. We need to get rid of about half of the democrats with the republican side of the federal government.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Retired and loving it
Posted by: veenstra on Nov 20, 2007 5:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seems like Pelosi is a closet republican.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pelosi is the Problem----Impeach Her Now!!!
Posted by: robbrian on Nov 28, 2007 5:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How can a member of the Congress arbitrarily deny the American people access to provisions of the Constitution which secure for them a remedy which punishes misfeasance in office?

When she contradicted our express mandate to impeach bush/cheney she committed an act of misfeasance and under Our Constitution that is a high crime, i.e., abuses of legislative power. She should also be impeached.

The Articles of Impeachment should include that, "She has acted in a manner contrary to her trust as Speaker and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.”

United States Constitution - Article I
Section 2.
Clause 5:
The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement