US Clean Energy to Rule the World and Romney should push it hard!

[CrusaderFrank]

While Obama was killing Keystone Pipeline, Domestic coal and offshore drilling while losing our money in Green Energy Scams and Frauds, a few things have been happening that will allow Mitt Romney to flank Obama and crush him on domestic clean energy policy.

HydroFracking has opened massive, inconceivably large sources of clean domestic gas that will allow the USA to become a, ready for this? a net EXPORTER of fuel within the next few years.

That alone would be enough and Romney needs to highlight how as President he would encourage the production of cheap energy. This will drive down inflation in fuel and food prices.

Clean US energy

A Winner!

 

[Old Rocks]

Natural gas is not clean. While cleaner than coal, it still emits vast amounts of CO2.

 

[Mr. H.]

Coal usage is down in this country, in favor of natural gas. Aren't you interested in reducing the amounts of Co2 in the atmosphere while maintaining our energy output? Fracing has created more jobs than any other industry of late. It's put hard dollars into workers' pockets, reaped tens of millions of dollars for local, state, and federal coffers and has helped reduce our natural gas imports.

We're on the verge of an epic swing towards reducing our trade deficit with respect to LNG exports.

And you still gotta toss a wet dishrag on it all?

 

[Oddball]

Natural gas is not clean. While cleaner than coal, it still emits vast amounts of CO2.

CO2 isn't a pollutant, Reverend Malthus.

 

[Mr. H.]

Natural gas is not clean. While cleaner than coal, it still emits vast amounts of CO2.

This is what absolutely kills me. Put this statement forth, and the general public eats it up. Yet, try talking to that same public about real jobs, real dollars, real economic growth, real GDP, and really boosting output relative to private sector expenditure... and it means NOTHING when placed next to "natural gas is not clean".

Now- tell the public about wind/solar/hydro being "green", and they pay NO attention to the massive government inputs (pretend dollars) versus actual sustainable job creation, non-net economic growth, and a net-zero contribution to GDP... all the while requiring NO private sector expenditures.

If you got the teeth, you can chew the fat. Alternative energy production currently consists of a toothless beast that insists on first gumming then spitting out unproductive net-nothing bullshit.

 

[Middleoftheroad]

Natural gas is not clean. While cleaner than coal, it still emits vast amounts of CO2.

CO2 isn't a pollutant, Reverend Malthus.

Fracking causes huge amounts of smog.

 

[Mr. H.]

Natural gas is not clean. While cleaner than coal, it still emits vast amounts of CO2.

CO2 isn't a pollutant, Reverend Malthus.

Fracking causes huge amounts of smog.

By that statement alone, you are obviously a man of uncommon rectitude and probity.

Stupid fuck also comes to mind.

 

[zonly1]

C02 is mantra of believe from human comsumption but on the contrary CO2 is nothing more than pop contron. when the elite hear 7 billion peeps, they can only orchestrate through cronism to buy of part of the bill or there will...take your pick.

 

[Old Rocks]

Coal usage is down in this country, in favor of natural gas. Aren't you interested in reducing the amounts of Co2 in the atmosphere while maintaining our energy output? Fracing has created more jobs than any other industry of late. It's put hard dollars into workers' pockets, reaped tens of millions of dollars for local, state, and federal coffers and has helped reduce our natural gas imports.

We're on the verge of an epic swing towards reducing our trade deficit with respect to LNG exports.

And you still gotta toss a wet dishrag on it all?

Still have to face what we are doing in releasing ever more GHGs into the atmosphere. Natural gas is a good transistianal fuel, but we need to cease, as quickly as possible, putting GHGs into the atmosphere. The results from what we have already done continue to look increasingly grim when you consider that it takes 30 to 50 years for the full results of the GHGs to be felt.

Yes, we are on the verge of becoming a net energy exporter, if the energy companies get their way. They are planning 12 to 14 trains, each a mile and a half long, from the Montana and Wyoming coal beds, to the Pacific Coast, to export to Asia every day. Add the natural gas exports, and for a brief time, we become wealthy, at least a few individuals, on the export of the fossil fuels that will destroy our long term resources.

Once the world warms to the point where our bread basket becomes a desert, it will be many, many generations before we see the world we enjoy at present.

 

[uscitizen]

Natural gas is not clean. While cleaner than coal, it still emits vast amounts of CO2.

CO2 isn't a pollutant, Reverend Malthus.

Anything is excess is a pollutnt.
Oxygen in excess would cause problems.

 

[zonly1]

Natural gas is not clean. While cleaner than coal, it still emits vast amounts of CO2.

CO2 isn't a pollutant, Reverend Malthus.

Anything is excess is a pollutnt.
Oxygen in excess would cause problems.

That be cool you taking in much 02 and you spontaneously flame out like tale light in a car.

 

[Mr. H.]

Coal usage is down in this country, in favor of natural gas. Aren't you interested in reducing the amounts of Co2 in the atmosphere while maintaining our energy output? Fracing has created more jobs than any other industry of late. It's put hard dollars into workers' pockets, reaped tens of millions of dollars for local, state, and federal coffers and has helped reduce our natural gas imports.

We're on the verge of an epic swing towards reducing our trade deficit with respect to LNG exports.

And you still gotta toss a wet dishrag on it all?

Still have to face what we are doing in releasing ever more GHGs into the atmosphere. Natural gas is a good transistianal fuel, but we need to cease, as quickly as possible, putting GHGs into the atmosphere. The results from what we have already done continue to look increasingly grim when you consider that it takes 30 to 50 years for the full results of the GHGs to be felt.

Yes, we are on the verge of becoming a net energy exporter, if the energy companies get their way. They are planning 12 to 14 trains, each a mile and a half long, from the Montana and Wyoming coal beds, to the Pacific Coast, to export to Asia every day. Add the natural gas exports, and for a brief time, we become wealthy, at least a few individuals, on the export of the fossil fuels that will destroy our long term resources.

Once the world warms to the point where our bread basket becomes a desert, it will be many, many generations before we see the world we enjoy at present.

I won't dispute the fact that you may very well have serious valid concerns, but I have yet to be convinced to the point of calling for the wholesale dismantling of entire industries which, by the way, would itself result in the collapse of world economies and the social fabric.

Incresaed natural gas production and consumption is a step in the right direction. The next step IMO is a massive conversion to NGV's and diesel transportation engines.

 

[ItsjustmeIthink]

Natural gas is not clean. While cleaner than coal, it still emits vast amounts of CO2.

CO2 isn't a pollutant, Reverend Malthus.

But does it not still contribute to the trapping of heat within the atmosphere? Just curious

 

[Douger]

Not surprisingly, only murka has a problem implementing renewable anything.
Global Wind Energy Council - GWEC: Germany

 

[ItsjustmeIthink]

Natural gas is not clean. While cleaner than coal, it still emits vast amounts of CO2.

This is what absolutely kills me. Put this statement forth, and the general public eats it up. Yet, try talking to that same public about real jobs, real dollars, real economic growth, real GDP, and really boosting output relative to private sector expenditure... and it means NOTHING when placed next to "natural gas is not clean".

Now- tell the public about wind/solar/hydro being "green", and they pay NO attention to the massive government inputs (pretend dollars) versus actual sustainable job creation, non-net economic growth, and a net-zero contribution to GDP... all the while requiring NO private sector expenditures.

If you got the teeth, you can chew the fat. Alternative energy production currently consists of a toothless beast that insists on first gumming then spitting out unproductive net-nothing bullshit.

I've always thought that the othersides argument had something to do with the fact the fossil fuels will evetually run out and that it would be better to stay strong, and continue to reduce out dependence on a limited fuel source no matter what.

That being said, I'd like to see Obama temporarily open up some fossil fuels reserves to give sort of a quick economic "pick-me-up" You know, give a sort of buffer to industry by giving it low energy cost for a couple years.

Now that also being said, you know and I know that Obama does not have the option because of the Republicans.

He probably wouldn't use fossil fuels just because of Dem liberals, but one has to be frank, the Republicans have made sure this will never happen. If the GOP pirincple is "If Obama Like It = it bad" Then if Obama were to endorse non-renewable energy, Republicans would be against it; and if you don't believe me then go look up "The GOP's Reaction to Obama Accepting Gang of Six proposal regarding debt ceilng"


What happened:
Dem and Cons get in statemate.
*Conseravtive* Gang of Six proposes alternative plan, GOP accepts it.
Gang of Six shows said plan to democrats and the president, Obama accepts it.
Once Obama accepts it, after the GOP accepts it, GOP then rejects it.

Yes you heard right: GOP proposes an idea, gets said idea accepted, then rejects said idea.

 

[flacaltenn]

Natural gas is not clean. While cleaner than coal, it still emits vast amounts of CO2.

This is what absolutely kills me. Put this statement forth, and the general public eats it up. Yet, try talking to that same public about real jobs, real dollars, real economic growth, real GDP, and really boosting output relative to private sector expenditure... and it means NOTHING when placed next to "natural gas is not clean".

Now- tell the public about wind/solar/hydro being "green", and they pay NO attention to the massive government inputs (pretend dollars) versus actual sustainable job creation, non-net economic growth, and a net-zero contribution to GDP... all the while requiring NO private sector expenditures.

If you got the teeth, you can chew the fat. Alternative energy production currently consists of a toothless beast that insists on first gumming then spitting out unproductive net-nothing bullshit.

I've always thought that the othersides argument had something to do with the fact the fossil fuels will evetually run out and that it would be better to stay strong, and continue to reduce out dependence on a limited fuel source no matter what.

That being said, I'd like to see Obama temporarily open up some fossil fuels reserves to give sort of a quick economic "pick-me-up" You know, give a sort of buffer to industry by giving it low energy cost for a couple years.

Now that also being said, you know and I know that Obama does not have the option because of the Republicans.

He probably wouldn't use fossil fuels just because of Dem liberals, but one has to be frank, the Republicans have made sure this will never happen. If the GOP pirincple is "If Obama Like It = it bad" Then if Obama were to endorse non-renewable energy, Republicans would be against it; and if you don't believe me then go look up "The GOP's Reaction to Obama Accepting Gang of Six proposal regarding debt ceilng"


What happened:
Dem and Cons get in statemate.
*Conseravtive* Gang of Six proposes alternative plan, GOP accepts it.
Gang of Six shows said plan to democrats and the president, Obama accepts it.
Once Obama accepts it, after the GOP accepts it, GOP then rejects it.

Yes you heard right: GOP proposes an idea, gets said idea accepted, then rejects said idea.

Just ask Old Rocks - the planet is a fuel bomb.. Ready to take us out in seconds with the loads of methane and nat gas stored..

I'd like to see the phoney "alternative energy" list get taken off life support.. Could Obama do that? no.... Only jobs that matter are green.. But of course -- that includes gun repair shops.. (no -- I'm not joking).. Ministry of Truth decided that..

 

[whitehall]

Ask yourself why the Hollywood establishment kisses the ass of rich Arabs. Ask yourself why a backwards little chunk of sand has so much influence over world affairs. The simple answer is that oil runs the planet and Saudi Arabia has the oil. Fossil fuel is the dominating factor in the world's economy. Ask yourself why Obama wants to reduce US oil production at a time when America's economy is in decline.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ask yourself why the Hollywood establishment kisses the ass of rich Arabs. Ask yourself why a backwards little chunk of sand has so much influence over world affairs. The simple answer is that oil runs the planet and Saudi Arabia has the oil. Fossil fuel is the dominating factor in the world's economy. Ask yourself why Obama wants to reduce US oil production at a time when America's economy is in decline.

Hmmm....... Seems to me that I remember "W" doing a full liplock on the Saudi Prince.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Natural gas is not clean. While cleaner than coal, it still emits vast amounts of CO2.

EnviroMarxism: the enemy of American Progress

 

[flacaltenn]

Natural gas is not clean. While cleaner than coal, it still emits vast amounts of CO2.

CO2 isn't a pollutant, Reverend Malthus.

Fracking causes huge amounts of smog.

Really? Show me HUGE.. And it better be big...

HYDRO, BioMass and GEOTHERMAL are a large source of CO2 and pollution also -- but they are blessed by the Enviro-Clergy..