As I said in an earlier post on this thread, I would much prefer some other source of energy.
If it were available and economically competitive, who wouldn't? But thus far, alternatives to gasoline powered engines have been a bust in my opinion. Green energy hasn't been economically competitive.
If environmental regulation were global and effective, it might be worth the economic sacrifice. But what's the point in hurting our own economy in the short term if it's ultimately not going to help the environment either?
It's hard for me not to think that if we could somehow make gasoline cheaper again, the economy would boom. It'd certainly make life better for working folks.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
ajax18 wrote:If it were available and economically competitive, who wouldn't? But thus far, alternatives to gasoline powered engines have been a bust in my opinion. Green energy hasn't been economically competitive.
If environmental regulation were global and effective, it might be worth the economic sacrifice. But what's the point in hurting our own economy in the short term if it's ultimately not going to help the environment either?
It's hard for me not to think that if we could somehow make gasoline cheaper again, the economy would boom. It'd certainly make life better for working folks.
Hi ajax,
The trouble with oil and gasoline is that they will eventually run out. No one is making more crude oil for us to tap. The same for coal.
I think we are at a point where we need to start thinking about what we will use to replace them.
The sun bathes us in more energy every day than we could use in a year. The trick might be in inventing batteries (or what ever) that can store enough energy to propel a vehicle for four hundred miles and recharge quickly.
Solar power, which is energy collected by solar cells, wind mills and even hydraulic power (Hydroelectric Dams) is probably the solution.
Cheap energy from coal and oil is a very temporary solution. I think the days of cheap gas are over.
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
The Senate voted 62 to 37 Friday in favor of constructing the Keystone XL pipeline, the controversial project that would transport heavy crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, to Gulf Coast’s refineries.
The bipartisan amendment to the Senate budget resolution, authored by Sens. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) and Max Baucus (D-Mont.), has no binding authority. But it shows the significant support the proposal enjoys on Capitol Hill, despite the fact that opponents argue its construction will accelerate global warming and could cause harmful oil spills on ecologically-sensitive habitat.
The 17 Democrats who voted yes included every single possibly vulnerable incumbent facing reelection next year, from 34-year veteran Baucus to first-term Sen. Mark Begich (Alaska).
Perhaps more importantly, Sen. Michael Bennet (Colo.), who chairs the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, voted for the resolution. Bennet is not up for re-election until 2016, but his post requires him to raise money from the wealthy liberal community that is highly opposed to the pipeline.
Additionally, a crop of Democrats who survived difficult reelections in 2012 — Sens. Bob Casey (Pa.), Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Bill Nelson (Fla.) and Jon Tester (Mont.) — all supported the GOP Keystone amendment.
“Budgets are about priorities and right now our number one priority needs to be creating jobs,” Baucus said in a statement. “Approving the Keystone Pipeline is the perfect opportunity to put Americans to work right now. American workers cannot afford to wait any longer for Keystone jobs, and there is absolutely no excuse for further delay.”
It is unclear how much the vote will influence President Obama, whose administration is still considering TransCanada’s permit application to cross the Canada-U.S. border. The State Department recently issued a draft environmental impact statement suggesting the oil sands would get developed even if Obama vetoed the permit, but environmentalists have challenged that analysis.
The department will have to finalize that assessment, and then determine whether the project serves the U.S. national interest, before the administration makes a final decision.
High-speed rail's strongest backers now express reservations
Proponents of the bullet train from L.A. to the Bay Area say political compromises reached to advance the plan undermine legal safeguards and will slow travel.
...
The California bullet-train project has collided with farmers, political conservatives and wealthy suburbanites who would like to see the $68-billion system killed. Now it is facing tough criticism from an unlikely quarter: within the ranks of high-speed rail's true believers.
Some longtime backers of the project are objecting to political compromises that they say undermine legal safeguards for the massive investment, notably a design that would move passengers between urban destinations faster than air travel, as well as requirements intended to prevent a half-built system.
Among those raising objections is a Bay Area high-speed rail trailblazer who for decades played a pivotal role in building public and political support for the system. Quentin Kopp chaired the state Senate transportation committee for years and co-wrote legislation that launched the bullet-train project. He later served as board chairman of the state agency overseeing construction of the system.
But in a recent legal declaration, filed in a civil suit seeking to halt the project, Kopp, a retired judge, said the project as now planned violates the law underpinning $9.95 billion in state financing approved by voters in 2008. The declaration puts Kopp in the improbable position of supporting a suit by key rail antagonists: officials in Kings County and two farmers supported by powerful agriculture interests.
"They have just mangled this project," Kopp said. "They distorted it. We don't get a high-speed rail system. It is the great train robbery."
...
No to the so-called high-speed rail system from Los Angeles to San Fransisco!!!
Yes to the building of the Keystone Pipeline!!!
"And I've said it before, you want to know what Joseph Smith looked like in Nauvoo, just look at Trump." - Fence Sitter