• waywardwind
    The last thing all my mind was George W Bush but when someone posts a lie, I will correct it. Scroll down a little bit and you will see what I was referring to.

    I think you got the perception of President Bush during Katrina all wrong.... No one expected, Tom Bartlett(communications director) to have to show the president of the United States a DVD of the suffering and devastation of Hurricane Katrina, in order to convince him that it was very important for him to make an appearance in New Orleans. That appearance came four days after the hurricane hit and after the country heard about the incompetence of FEMA and the person Bush appointed to that office. I believe it's safe to say that many of us saw all the incompetence of the Federal response when Wal-Mart brought in ice and water before any military truck showed up. We knew the hurricane was coming but durning the day after the hurricane, there was only one man from FEMA on the scene. Hurricane response is not that difficult because President Clinton and his FEMA director handled many and so did president Bush's brother in Florida. Anyway, a hurricane where over 1000 people died and half of the city was destroyed because of the Federal local and state governments is different from an oil spill where everything is dependent on the expertise of British Petroleum. There's nothing anyone can do about out of date technology to pick up the oil, that is coming on shore.

    That's not to say that president Obama bears no fault in the Federal response to this oil spill because I think he made a couple in his speech last night. I think he should've put a dollar amount on the amount of escrow and I don't think he should have said that 90% of this leak will be capped in a few days. British Petroleum has been lying since day one; raising expectations of those being affected should've been the number one priority but not on BP's word.

    June 16, 2010 at 10:11 a.m.

  • Okaaaayyyyy. Bush suffered a PR disaster over a hurricane several years ago because stupid people thought he could pull a plug and the water would quickly drain out of New Orleans and it didn't. This has exactly WHAT to do with BO and his handling of the gusher in the Gulf? According to administration spokesmen, Obama's been on top of things since day one and he and his minions have been telling BP what to do and how to do it because they're politicians so of course they're the pros from Dover when it comes to stopping the oil.

    The one thing no politician can EVER say is "I don't know." The simple fact is that Bush couldn't do very much about Katrina and it's damage and BO can't do anything about the oil. Neither knew (knows) what to do but neither could (can) admit it for fear of appearing weak or -- worse, incompetent. BO has a big advantge over Bush, though. Bush didn't have an oil company to blame.

    June 15, 2010 at 6:31 p.m.

  • Above are two photos. The second one shows Bush flying over New Orleans; it was widely regarded as a PR disaster, because he seemed so disconnected. But it looks an awful lot like the first photo, of Bush on Air Force One on 9/11. And that photo was considered a wonderful picture of leadership in action — so much so that there was a mini-scandal when the GOP started selling copies of that photo for political fundraising.

    June 15, 2010 at 5:47 p.m.

  • WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House approves of the Republican congressional campaign committee's plan to use a photograph of President Bush taken on September 11 as part of a GOP fundraising effort, a move Democrats call "nothing short of grotesque."

    June 15, 2010 at 5:40 p.m.

  • This absolutly disgusting:

    Did President Bush ever raise money off of 9/11? Hurricane Katrina? The thought is mind boggling--who would think to politicize a national catastrophe or use it to push an unrelated legislative agenda?

    The Obama administration, that's who. Organizing for America sent out a fundraising email today that makes it clear the Obama White House plans on exploiting the Gulf spill disaster for as much legislative momentum as possible. Captain Kick-Ass has moved on to cap and trade.

    June 15, 2010 at 5:29 p.m.

  • If anyone is un-American, that would be those, who claim to represent the rule of law but in fact, advocate MOB RULE!

    In Mexico, the corrupt wealthy and powerful usurp and oppress the human rights of their citizens and country men; I will not allow extremist to do so in America, neither will every other true American.

    I advocate that we live up to our ideals and respect the rule of law, the United States Constitution; not the opinions of hacks as to what is constitutional.

    If you are offended, consider this, I’m offended by the traitorous acts of those who claim to believe in America but would sacrifice our rights because they are “scared”; welcome to real life.

    I come on here, using my real name, I speak boldly and openly of the vile and capricious acts of the powerful and wealthy, when they claim to be steadfast and endeared to what is right. I have no fear, nor time to cajole weak sensibilities, of those who obvious choose to speak maliciously deceptive on matters important to our Democratic Republican.

    I speak the truth, nothing less and with a heart for my country that was instilled in me over a lifetime of seeing the sacrifices my family and friends have made for this great country. I promise you, any threat to this country, to the constitution upon which it stands; will meet my extreme prejudice.

    I take no easy path, nor shelter, nor comfort, in my defense of “My” country; if that is warranted to insure it’s “union”.

    Be offended, but listen clearly, “I am American”.

    Your voluminous antagonistic distortion of my words and position, will not stand like all lies and deceitful words, they will fall.

    As for my remarks concerning “some” Republicans, it was to those who praise America with one hand but try every tom foolery to evade putting their lives in danger for our country; they know who they are and of course, most Republicans would not be in that category.

    I have no patience for cowards that demonstrate allegiance and bravado when it serves them, but refuse to stand for what is right in the moment it is needed most; we fight the battles because it is just not just because we are winning.

    Most of my Republican friends are great people, who I would not only offer an invitation for supper but stand side by side with them if we were those left standing at the Alamo.

    “Death is only a one moment, dishonor is eternal”

    There are good people, their political distinction does not determine this, their values do.

    June 15, 2010 at 3:02 p.m.

  • Rollingstone

    In this case, the environmentalist's projections were correct but they're not the reason that more states are not allowing shallow water drilling. Most people have a legitimate concern.

    I don't know who is advocating the "either or " but I think everyone knows that fossil fuels will be with us for the next 30 years or so and so will coal. Those industries will fight tooth and nail to retain their dominance.

    I don't know what you are are reading, but I have not seen a growing hostility to wind energy... In fact, it was you, that mocked my blog where I wrote that there was a company in Austin,Texas that developed a cost-effective method for storing large scale electrical energy storage at base load levels to match the delivery of electric power from intermittent energy sources (wind and solar).

    The people of Kentucky and West Virginia have probably exhausted all the safe dirty coal they can extract so they're resorting to the more dangerous " mountaintop removal" method. How many more accidents due to not adhering to safety rules, can we tolerate? Their water source has been contaminated with high levels of metals, their respiratory diseases have gone up, and a blatant disregard for protecting the miners has proven to be too costly for the mining companies. Abt associates found that power plant pollution causes more than 38,200 heart attacks and 554,000 asthma attacks a year. That comes to $167 billion a year in health costs.

    Nuclear energy in the United States has a marketing problem because 72% expressed concern about potential accidents. They still have a disposal problem. I know that they have multiple auto shutdown mechanisms in place to avoid a melt down but I think their main problem is funding; it is expensive and who wants to wait 10-11 years before they start getting a return on their investment.

    June 15, 2010 at 11:27 a.m.

  • Waywardwind

    What I'm saying, is that I support the six month moratorium on deep water drilling.... I have already listed the reasons why. The first thing the Federal government needs to do, is get its own house in order, by conducting a probe on procedures, personnel, and irregularities. It's impossible to make an evaluation without a thorough investigation i.e. Shell has an 8,000 ft. rig but they might not be cutting corners, schedule maintenance may be to up to date, and testing data may be within the parameters of safety. Industrial plants have computer simulators where they can conduct training, research, and what if scenarios.... The oil companies need to put more money in research and development to prepare for the worst case scenario. British Petroleum's COO answer as to why a plan was not in place, is appalling. The lack of a lot of major oil spills, is his reasoning for not having a plan in place. It won't take but a couple minutes to disprove that.

    If your question was about alternatives for a barrel for barrel replacement, those questions can only be answered after we're satisfied that drilling in the deep waters of the gulf is not safe; then adjustments and data will be given.

    I've given a short answer but it requires a more detailed response going back to the 1980s. It all starts with a mindset of deregulating everything, weakening the government(purse strings), and using taxpayer money to train government regulators ,only to lose them to the private sector company they were trained to regulate.

    June 15, 2010 at 11:19 a.m.

  • waywardwind

    As of June 9,2010, the deep shore off drilling rig,Atlantis, continues to drill 50 miles out further than the Horizon was, but as I understand it, new permits will not be allowed for new offshore drilling, and it is not limited to the Gulf of Mexico,o until further notice..... Even though whistle-blowers have revealed that the Atlantis is a ticking time bomb, Atlantis have convinced those in authority,that it would not be in the economic interest of America for them to completely shut down....Fishy

    Like you, all my efforts have been on British Petroleum and at my age, there's a point where it becomes information overload.

    I don't know any more than you do about the continental shelf laws but I imagine since we have more battle ships ,those lines are drawn in our favor. We do know that British Petroleum flies the flag of the Marshall Islands because their maritime laws are very liberal. And we knew that, when we allowed them to drill 5,000 feet.

    June 15, 2010 at 11:08 a.m.

  • FYI, B. Boxer & D. Finstane, stated on the floor of Senate they did not want wind generators dirtying up their landscape.

    June 15, 2010 at 10:33 a.m.

  • Mike...Perhaps I wasn't clear -- certainly not unusual. Do we stop production from already existing wells or do we stop drilling new wells?

    There is something else I've been wondering about. The BP well that's causing the problem is about 40 miles off the coast. Is that not international water? How does US law apply in international waters? Once again, I'm not trying to start a fight. You have obviously done a lot more research than I have had time to do, and even with the time, I'm not sure where to start on a lot of issues.

    June 15, 2010 at 10:33 a.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    June 15, 2010 at 10:18 a.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    June 15, 2010 at 9:35 a.m.

  • Mike...I have a civil question for you. You say there are things we can do to make up for the loss of deep water oil. Since there is only the one well that's leaking, are you advocating sealing ALL the wells in deep water in the Gulf -- I'm talking about the ones that are not leaking but, rather producing. There is no hidden agenda with this question. There is only my curiosity about what you think should be done.

    June 14, 2010 at 10:08 p.m.

  • SanAntosWorks...I'm not sure how you managed to get your America bashing post into one about the oil disaster in the Gulf, but I can't let it go.

    You're complaining about "the rule of law"? Sounds like you're advocating anarchy. That IS what you get without the rule of law. You know, exactly what is going on in Mexico now. And YOU want to bring THAT into the United States.

    I take great offense with your comment: "these are people with no honor, no principle and no loyalty to the United States Constitution." How DARE you question the honor, principles and loyalty of CITIZENS who ask only that the people who come to this (still) great nation do so in accordance with the laws of the country where they decide to live. With those words, you have perfectly described the illegal aliens who cross the border and the people in this country who support them.

    There is NOTHING anti-Constitutional about the immigration law Arizona passed. They are simply copying the federal law that the government in Washington is failing to enforce. Those coming to the US illegally have NO right to be here. They are citizens of a foreign hell-hole of a country. If they wish better conditions, let them stay home and change things there. Don't suggest there is no opportunity in Mexico; I read not long ago that a Mexican citizen is now the wealthiest man in the world. He didn't get that way by sneaking into the US. He stayed home and created his wealth. Damn, he sounds suspiciously like a capitalist.

    June 14, 2010 at 10:02 p.m.

  • We are drilling in deep water because the environmentalist won't allow drilling nearer to shore - concern for a blow outs. But IMO a blowout would not be any worse closer to shore.

    But we are painting ourselves into a corner with don't drill or mine baby at all. No nuclear plants, no coal fired plants, growing hostility to wind energy, the list is endless.

    June 14, 2010 at 8:34 p.m.

  • John

    I was floored when I heard Brit Hume and Bill Kristol of Fox News Sunday say that the president did everything humanly possible but there wasn't much he could do and all this talk of proper attire, temperament, and anything else ,was just media expectations.

    With the temperament of this country today, I seriously doubt that the president can give a John Kennedy speech on the need of finding alternative fuels. He needs to go into detail, such as informing us, that even if we continue drilling into deep waters of the gulf, it would only reduce the price at the pump by 3¢..... He needs to emphasize that the oil companies are taking this expensive and dangerous rout,e without a plan for the worst case scenario. There will always be that 30% of uninformed haters, who will not listen to reason. There may have about 10% in the middle who are not sure, so it will be up to the 60% to make this happen.

    There are several ways we can make up for the oil lost from deep shore drilling, without switching to alternative fuels but like John Kennedy's space program, we must put that first foot forward.

    June 14, 2010 at 4:19 p.m.

  • Hello rollingstone

    And a good afternoon to you too.

    I don't think traffic and accident data is gonna give any comfort to the ecosystem, the 11 lives that were lost, the damage this is going to cost to the fishermen, tourism and wild life . Trying to minimize this tragedy won't work,either.

    Okay, now I'll reengage from oil spill to turbines. I agree turbines migh tnot be all that attractive but as a pundit said the other night," when they fall into the ocean, it just creates a big splash, not an environmental hazard."

    With the mindset of " drill baby drill" or " drill here,drill there,drill everywhere," your mind will never be changed but this president will give a speech torrorow night to inform the country that we are going to make an honest effort, to take the initial steps forward in seeking alternative fuels. It's gonna take both parties to come to the table to iron out their differances, but I don't see that happening, in this election year. Again, status quo, wins again and we will readdress this issue, generation after generation or until we don't have another choice.

    June 14, 2010 at 3:50 p.m.

  • People do like to use labels, one that Republicans shout is “rule of law”; forget that in Arizona they use that argument in pursing “anti-constitutional legislation”. I guess for some, the ends justifies the means, these are people with no honor, no principle and no loyalty to the United States Constitution.

    Many of my friends are Republicans, I’m shamed and so are they, by the actions and blow heart statements made by their counterparts on matters such as this.

    I’ve played nice, even conceded to taking a short respite from blogging, but mike is correct in his assessment on this matter.

    We must never, never sacrifice our principles because of the weight of our problems; for those Republicans and people who care more about their bottom line than country, it’s called honor.

    The President of the United States of America, is not responsible for this attack on Americas shorelines. Regardless as to whether it was a risk, intentional created because of unsavory business practices or incompetence, this is an attack on our environment and the livelihoods of innocent Americans.

    The president, up to this point has acted rational and with prudence, arguments to the contrary fail to grasp or are unwilling to understand the magnitude of this crisis. We must expect of our leaders, caution and just action; especially in matters that affect more than ourselves.

    It’s selfish and ignorant to demand all countering parties concede, so that those who would loose financially from cession of off shore drilling in the near future, earn an extra buck. Is oil going to devalue as time goes on, no, hell freaking no. Will those who abandon offshore drilling because of government regulation and special requirements renew their leases, hell yeah, duh, supply and demand.

    They may say otherwise, and play a waiting game but the truth of the matter is they are full of it.

    So, for the time being, President Obama is pursing a responsible course of action; you Republicans, did want responsible government, didn’t you?

    I’m not defending the President, just Mikes “opinion” and reminding people to use their common sense. We will get pass this, the important matter, is whether we do so in a better position or allow bully opinions to intimidated us into a series of erroneous decisions.

    Free speech, is not free, words have consequence that others may suffer the cost. Speak wisely, so that instead of being a cost, what is heard increases in value.

    June 14, 2010 at 3:29 p.m.

  • West Texas. They should be closer to the coast. It never stops blowing over here. I'd rather have an eyesore than rotten air or destroyed oceans.

    June 14, 2010 at 3:28 p.m.

  • "This oil spill it a lot closer to the devastation 9/11 caused than a simple automobile accident. " That statement gave me a real chuckle, Mike.

    Do you realize that about 40,000 people die each year or our roads and highways. Over the last 50 years over two million people have died on our roads and probably at least six million seriously injured.

    This oil spill in the Gulf will be over shortly and this "great catastrophe" will be off the radar in no time. But while it is here Obama will use it to cram cap and trade down our throats.

    This "scheme" will introduce another wild variable into the pricing of energy and it will make some insiders very rich - which is I guess its primary purpose.

    And last but not least have you seen what the wind turbine companies have done to west Texas - they have created a gigantic eye sore and destroyed the landscape of our great state.

    A recent article I read indicated that in Texas only about 8 percent of the installed wind turbine capacity is available during hot summer days - what a waste. To make up the difference they have to use gas fired units. Mike I guess you know how we get gas - yeah, that's right they have to DRILL FOR IT!!!!

    June 14, 2010 at 3:24 p.m.

  • Until I started visiting this forum, I didn't know that I was a liberal, er, Progressive. I always assumed I was an American. Go figure
    Left, center, right, has no real meaning to me. They're just words.

    June 14, 2010 at 2:50 p.m.

  • I think these people throw around labels but they don't know what they mean... I still think people cling to " I'm a conservative", thinking it is instant credibility. When something conservative goes wrong; they say it was not conservative enough; as a reason for the error. To them, Conservative means infallibility.

    Not too many on the left, use the word liberal anymore; they prefer to be called Progressives but it all amounts to not being conservative and a left of center position. Former president George H.W. Bush effectively demonized the word" Liberal" when he ran against Michael Dukakis.

    I get a kick out of people saying " I'm not a liberal" and go on to give their stances on the social issues and on the other side, they will say " I'm not a republican, I'm a conservative " and do the same thing ,as the one saying he's not a liberal. I keep saying " just hum a few bars" and the readers will determine what you are."... A self analysis rarely works in this forum.

    June 14, 2010 at 2:12 p.m.

  • "Since when did liberal become a catastrophic disease?" :D

    Since people have decided that everything wrong with the world is a Liberal's fault. They fail to see that Liberals are needed to keep Conservatives straight. Without a good balance of the two, this Country becomes one big Corporation in which the CEO's play God with people's lives.

    June 14, 2010 at 1:49 p.m.

  • born2me

    I don't disagree with your statement and I have said as much, but for that one unsuspecting reader(not a regular) I don't like my words to be taken out a context.

    Sometimes I use that characterization but only after they have hummed a few bars;then I think I can finish the rest of the song.

    Since when did liberal become a catastrophic disease?

    June 14, 2010 at 1:24 p.m.

  • Mike,

    Most people don't mischaracterize statements on purpose. People see what they want to see, or hear what they want to hear.
    Everyone has you labeled a liberal, so they have you pegged for believing what they perceive a Liberal to believe. It's really not going to matter what you say to correct them.

    June 14, 2010 at 12:13 p.m.

  • waywardwind

    Your gross mischaracterization of my statements may be an agenda.

    I never said only evil republicans have an agenda; I have said many times, EVERYONE has an agenda and in the case of the current energy bill; republicans are blocking every effort to raise the amount of liability on the oil companies with the exception of Louisiana's Mary Landrieu and another democrat or two. If you will read my post very carefully, you will see I was writing about one particular special interest.

    I admit my statement might have been confusing but most people that want to stay on fossil fuels will always try to put out a caveat such as our reliance on oil, cost, and the time line.

    You are totally exaggerating my point because I never said Americans should switch to bicycles; cut off their air conditioners or even buy electric cars. We can do several things without consumer sacrificing and I have mentioned several but those that rather mock than discuss, will overlook them.

    Bill Gates (a person that is hundred times smarter than we are) told Jack Trapper of ABC's This Week that we should put about $11 billion into a research in a development stimulus plan. When Jack Trapper asked him if this was the right time to suggest such a plan; Bill Gates said “we should differentiate the word "spend" and “investment." He also said “We currently spend about $30 billion for Health Care and $80 billion for defense" meaning, it's all about allocation... I'm paraphrasing but his point remains the same...Don't take my word.

    The majority of my post was about a mindset of " we can't because...bla bla bla."

    June 14, 2010 at 11:42 a.m.

  • Observer,
    An absolute excellent post, what congress is doing is nothing more than criminal and they should be held totally accountable for their actions, because it is nothing more than highway robbery of the American taxpayer. But they will continue their propaganda, “they are do what is best for the country.” These elected officials need to be in jail, one thing about it, Barney Madeoff can’t even hold a candle to these fine upstanding elected officials.

    June 14, 2010 at 9:27 a.m.

  • Observer...Excellent points.

    June 14, 2010 at 7:55 a.m.

  • Since Mr. Ed brought up the Cash for Clunkers Program, I thought the following might be of interest.
    -A vehicle that gets 15 mpg and is driven 12,000 miles a year uses 800 gallons a year of gasoline.
    -A vehicle that gets 25 mpg and is driven 12,000 miles a year uses 480 gallons a year.
    -So, the average clunker transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons a year.
    -The program estimates 700,000 vehicles, so that's 224 million gallons per year.
    -That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.
    -Five million barrels of oil is about 1/4 of one day's US consumption.
    -And, 5 million barrels of oil costs about $350 million dollars at $75 per barrel.
    -So, we all contributed to spending $3 billion of our tax dollars to save $350 million.
    -And it also increased sales of Japanese and Korean cars.

    Gee, what a great idea. No wonder this administration is known for the brilliant economic rationale underlying their policies.

    June 13, 2010 at 1:05 p.m.

  • I'm glad to learn that only evil republlicans have agendas and special interests.

    Mike, I'm with you completely when you say we need to wean ourselves from fossil fuels. Where we part ways is your comment, "You will never convince those that think that in order to start weaning our self off fossil fuels; we have to simultaneously open the valve of alternative fuels, as we cut off the valve of fossil fuels." Evidently you want us to do without until that "someday" when alternatives are on line. No, thanks. I DO want the alternative valve opening as the fossil valve closes.

    I'm not willing to simply shut off my air conditioning and go back using a fan. No way. I grew up in a house that didn't have A/C until I was in junior high. I will NOT do without A/C; I have vivid memories. I will not park my cars and use bicycles -- not in Victoria's summer. I've read your posts wherein you advocate exceedingly expensive gasoline prices to encourage (enforce?) conservation. I thought democrats were all for the "everyman" and were in favor of "equality." Then you want to make gas so expensive only the rich will be able to drive. That's not nice. I'll switch to a car with a different power plant when an AFFORDABLE alternative is available. I guess that makes me sound like an evil republican.

    By the way, those vouchers you said would be included in a democrat plan to allow the poor to pay their utility bills....where's the money coming from for them? Last time I looked we're broke.

    June 12, 2010 at 7:39 p.m.

  • Well Mike,

    In the game of semantics also applies to what the definition of "is" is too. lol

    As a noun scheme has many meanings, some not good, some good.

    a plan, design, or program of action to be followed; project.
    an underhand plot; intrigue.
    a visionary or impractical project.
    a body or system of related doctrines, theories, etc.: a scheme of philosophy.
    any system of correlated things, parts, etc., or the manner of its arrangement.
    a plan, program, or policy officially adopted and followed, as by a government or business: The company's pension scheme is very successful.
    an analytical or tabular statement.
    a diagram, map, or the like.
    an astrological diagram of the heavens.

    June 12, 2010 at 3:21 p.m.

  • Mr. Ed seems to be most interested in debating you on the subject of Obama's book. I am surprised you do not take him up on his offer. A debate between you and the equine philosopher would probably prove to be both entertaining and enlightening. How about it, O stalwart Stalinist warrior and defender of all things to the nether regions of the left-wing?

    June 12, 2010 at 2:58 p.m.

  • Legion357

    In the game of semantics, it can also be use as a noun....=An elaborate and systematic plan of action....:-)

    But I don't put all my marbles in their projection because a projection is a projection...

    Have a good weekend.

    June 12, 2010 at 12:40 p.m.

  • born2me
    What's the old saying" You can't soar like an eagle, if you're hanging with turkey's."

    You will never convince those that think that in order to start weaning our self off fossil fuels; we have to simultaneously open the valve of alternative fuels, as we cut off the valve of fossil fuels. Those were the same people that railed against President Eisenhower when he launched Explorer I to rival Sputnik.

    You hit the nail on the head because the Federal government consumes most of our energy; it wouldn't be hard to pass alternative energy laws; were it not for special interest. If we had less Republicans , it would have already been done. We have already wasted eight years of the Bush administration and over 500 days of the Obama Administration.

    I heard a republican congressman say that if we tax carbon, grandma will die because she won't be able to afford air condition.. Scare tactics is what they're good at, the truth is another matter ,because he should know full well that vouchers for the poor, will be included in any democratic plan.

    Hang in there because we are ready taking steps to conserve energy. Remember the high gas prices of a couple years ago; consumption went down drastically. The" Cash for Clunkers" took many gas guzzlers off the road, our auto manufacturers have gotten the message and so have the consumers, in their choices of vehicles. If you're in a large city and in the passenger seat , look at the smaller cars compared to the larger ones.

    I Think some of these posters were descendants of those that wanted to stay on steam and the horse and buggy.

    June 12, 2010 at 12:22 p.m.

  • theWWW,

    You gotta starts somewhere and it will never start as long a oil companies are given free reign to do as they wish, when they wish and where they wish.
    This government is going to have to start putting real controls on what they can do, Until then, it will be business as usual.
    Best ideas are born of necessity and until necessity kicks in, well, you know.

    June 11, 2010 at 9:26 p.m.

  • born2Bme...Well, the people who are out of work and are going to fill those "green" jobs you said will be coming. They're who the #### cares how long. I was wondering how long they'll be going hungry before "green technology" opens up enough jobs for them to go back to work.

    I agree that we must wean ourselves from oil and coal, but it's gonna take a long time -- decades probably -- and that's if we start yesterday. It's also gonna cost a **** of a lot of money to do the R & D and then put the technology into production. Where is the money coming from? Remember, the country is broke.

    I'd like to see solor panels on the roofs of every house in the sun belt. I'd like to see hydrogen fuel cells in cars. I'd like to see wind farms in coastal areas to take advantage of almost constant breezes. Some people complain they are unattractive. Perhaps so, but no more so than oil refineries. They have the added advantgage that they smell better. But, born, these things in the quantities to get us off oil and coal are a long way in the future. I don't know how old you are, but I'll never live long enough to see it happen. Yeah, we need start immediately, but that'll take leadership; something sorely lacking in both government and industry.

    June 11, 2010 at 8:09 p.m.

  • Mike, umm read what IEA says about , I guess cap and trade...

    "Emissions Trading and CDM

    Emissions trading is a way of introducing flexibility into a system where participants have to meet emissions targets. These participants may be countries (as in the case of the Kyoto Protocol), or companies (as in the case of a domestic emissions trading scheme)."

    Good grief, they even call it a scheme....

    –verb (used with object)
    to devise as a scheme; plan; plot; contrive.

    June 11, 2010 at 6:48 p.m.

  • This is what I found Legion.
    There are two funds: the Green Municipal Enabling Fund (GMEF) - C$25 million; and the Green Municipal Investment Fund (GMIF) - C$100 million. ...Now it may be outdated because I just cut & pasted a source..Forgot the date;sorry.

    June 11, 2010 at 6:06 p.m.

  • "I wonder what the IEA budget is? And where the funding comes from? Nothing on their website about that." Good question legion357 because I also wonder who is funding the other side; could it be Exxon?

    It was just a source and a projection that could turn out to be wrong but I just thought it was interesting but In full disclosure; I'm concerned with climate change.

    June 11, 2010 at 5:58 p.m.

  • theWWW,

    Who the #### cares. As long as it takes, I guess. I do know one thing for certain, if we don't start working toward other types of energy, and quickly, it won't matter to anyone if one has a job or not. There will not be any food to be had anyway. Fossil fuels are literally poisoning this planet, both air and now the sea.

    June 11, 2010 at 5:52 p.m.

  • "IEA Ministers recognise that current energy trends are not sustainable and that a better balance must be found between the three Es – energy security, economic development and protection of the environment. Energy is part of many environmental problems, including climate change, and must be part of the solution. The IEA has been engaged for more than a decade on designing cost-effective approaches to reduce CO2 emissions, from the international policy architecture (including trading mechanisms) to energy efficiency policy and the promotion of clean technologies."

    "The main objectives of the EED division are to assess and design policy responses to energy-related CO2 emissions"

    "(CCU) has a two-pronged work agenda on climate policy. First, in support of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, it contributes to the work of the OECD/IEA Climate Change Expert Group "
    "(EEU) assists countries to exploit all cost-effective end-use energy efficiency potentials as part of their strategy to achieve sustainable energy futures"
    "The ETP division provides energy policy makers and other stakeholders with analysis that assesses promising technology pathways towards a more secure, more sustainable energy future."
    "The Technology Network Unit oversees activities of the IEA global energy technology and R&D network, notably supporting the Low-Carbon Energy Technology Platform."
    "The Carbon Capture and Storage Technology Unit works on the contribution that technologies for capturing and storing carbon dioxide can make to sustainability in fossil-fuel electrical power plants and industrial processes."

    Sounds like they are more worried about "climate change" than anything else. Another group of experts who believe what they believe and want the entire world to follow their advice, that also has the ear of the UN. I wonder what the IEA budget is? And where the funding comes from? Nothing on their website about that.

    June 11, 2010 at 5:51 p.m.

  • It's always the old" bait and switch.".... Let's continue what we're doing because it's cheap and people that want to talk about clean energy should be hushed, because it's so far out, and it's no use having positive thoughts... The oil companies are eating that up, people continue to eat at the palms of their hands.

    The question should be" When will deep shore drilling have a plan for the worst case scenario?"

    Another good question... " How far do we go before we say enough?".. " Do we continue destroying the ecosystem, wild life, and marshes, just to save a few bucks?" It would be interesting to see a spreadsheet calculating the cost of the devastation, compared to raising the price of gasoline to $4.00.... The calculation would have to guess as to what this catastrophe will end up costing...... Future generations will probably say" What were they thinking?" Then they might ask" Why didn't they follow the other countries that got off fossil fuels; seems like this generation had no vision."

    About the only thing I agreed with President George W Bush,was when he said in one of his state of the union speeches " We are addicted to oil." He never really wanted to do anything about it, but he knew our problem and he also knew the oil companies would continue having their way.

    The politicians will end up doing what the tea party types, oil lobbyist, and voters force them to do;" drill baby drill.".....That's really sad.

    June 11, 2010 at 5:36 p.m.

  • born2Bme..."Our economy will take a hit at first, but all of those workers can swith over to jobs created when clean energy technology advances to the point of production and putting things into effect."

    I'm just wondering here, you understand. How many decades do you suppose that'll be?

    June 11, 2010 at 4:56 p.m.

  • Gee, the all mighty Mike the expert on all topics and issues. I know you seem to think we’re all stupid. Why don’t you come up with a solution, it would be for more than what your President is doing, since you have not made one criticism about how he’s handling the “OIL SPILL.” Oh I forgot its still G. Bush’s fault. Go MSNBC!!!!

    June 11, 2010 at 4:55 p.m.

  • Diane Wilson sleeps very well every night because she is so heavily medicated.

    Here's a great idea no one has thought of. What about drilling for oil in ANWAR?

    June 11, 2010 at 4:44 p.m.

  • They just repeat what they hear on Fox News or other shills for the big oil by using one- sided hypothetical s. They probably don't know that petroleum is a commodity that is traded on a global market, which means that all the oil that is extracted, is put in one pot ,to draws from. That oil is not necessarily targeted for the United States.

    It has been reported by the International Energy Agency , that a one- to two-year delay for all planned new deepwater oilfield projects in the gulf could reduce daily production by 100,000 to 300,000 barrels a day by 2015. At the high end, that would be nearly 18 percent of current production in the gulf and 5 percent of total domestic production, but less than 2 percent of total national oil consumption.

    But if you listen to the right, it would seem that a moratorium, in the name of safety, would send disabled pensioners to the soup lines, gillion of workers to the unemployment line and God forbid, British Petroleum might have to answer to their shareholders. In the meantime it sickens me to see struggling pelicans ,covered with oil, grasping for air. The COO of British Petroleum still denies the underwater plume and the fact that we don't know what the affect the dispersants will have.

    It has been reported that the administration is working with the oil companies, figuring out a way that they can still pay the workers during the moratorium. I don't know how the negotiations are going.

    June 11, 2010 at 4:38 p.m.

  • Well darn it, it sounds like a lot of you don't care that a part of your food chain may be destroyed forever, or at least for years and decades to come.
    Yeah it's sad that people will loose jobs, but it is sadder that people who are totally innocent have lost their livelihood and may never get it back.
    What is totally sad is that every business associated with seafood , or coastal activity, that is east of Austin will be effected by this. So how are the jobs of oil workers more important than the jobs of those workers?
    If a company is as unsafe as BP has proven to be, they need to just GTF out of this Country. There are no jobs worth the devastation to our eco-system, our food chain, and the many other areas that this will forever change.
    If drilling in deep water is this unsafe, than it needs to be stopped. Our economy will take a hit at first, but all of those workers can swith over to jobs created when clean energy technology advances to the point of production and putting things into effect.
    Just think about the event of a hurricane this year, that oil is going to come here, go to Cuba maybe, up the East coast, and it will keep going once it gets into the various ocean currents.
    This is a tragedy of world-wide proportions, and someone has to be held accountable for their negligence.
    This time it cannot be about money. It is a wake-up call for all of us. We cannot support offshore drilling if it means ruining our food chain and wiping out many types of sea life.

    June 11, 2010 at 3:41 p.m.

  • Bp not prepared for a worst case scenario, well guess what, neither was this President. Nice rant Mike, sound just like the President, nothing but complaints not one once of a solution. “We will hold a boot to their throat!!” Yeah we got your back.

    June 11, 2010 at 3:10 p.m.

  • Now we have two unanswered questions. While I care about "...the devastation, the environment, the wildlife and the future..." as much as you appear to, I cannot give them precedence over human beings whose lives may be devastated by the policies that you advocate. While you "...can always make money...", what about the disabled retiree who cannot? Whose sole source of income is wholly or partially dependent on a financially viable BP that is able to continue paying dividends? I cannot relegate an honest, hard-working retiree to the ashbin of history in the name of advancing the cause of the "environment".

    On to the second question, which is that Mr. Ed appears to be serious about offering to debate you, an offer that you have yet to even acknowledge. If you truly have the courage of your convictions, this seems to be an offer at which you would leap.

    June 11, 2010 at 3:03 p.m.

  • That's all right wingers are obsessed with; $$$$$$$... They don't care about the devastation, the environment, the wild life or the future for that matter.

    It not about the pelicans;it's the dividends,not the shrimpers it's the CEO and board members.

    I am a retiree and I may have some BP stock but I can always make money; it's not an obsession... I've gone through the ups and downs, so don't call me indifferent, just because I'm not obsessed with money.

    Do all right wingers have to resort to name calling? Is that what Glenn Beck,Sean, and Rush teaches you?

    Now, I'm not gonna continue this childish name calling, so you have a good day ago and go bother someone else.

    June 11, 2010 at 1:46 p.m.

  • I am sure that is of great comfort to the many retirees who either own BP stock or rely on a retirement fund that counts on dividends from the BP stock they hold for income to pay retirees. Sounds as though, as long as the great environmental cause is advanced, you are indifferent to hard-working retirees being reduced to poverty. Does the end still justify the means, Vladimir?

    June 11, 2010 at 1:32 p.m.

  • Observer
    I'm well aware that it will be costly but so is the devastation they cause.

    I just said the other day, if companies leave, good riddance, we need to start thinking about getting off fossil fuels.

    The only reason we're still on coal and oil; it's cheap; the environment, respiratory problems, and disasters take second place.

    Rational countries(to me) are France, Brazil,Japan and others who have found that conservation, high prices, alternative energy, higher CAFE standards, light rail, other public transportation, and bicycles are another way of not having to rely on fossil fuels and 19th century technology..... Even China is building 20 new nuclear reactors; yes I know they're still building several coal fired plants.

    I heard that British Petroleum employs about 12,000 people in the United States but after this disaster, those people will lose their job anyway because either the company will go bankrupt or their safety record will finally catch up with them ; meaning other countries will not want them.

    BTW Brazil & Norway requires the acoustic switch & Canada requires a relief well...The only reason they are drilling off shore is because they have practically exhausted all the land oil...That just makes sense.

    June 11, 2010 at 1:19 p.m.

  • Do you have any idea what the exploration companies pay to lease those deep water rigs? Do you really think they will patiently sit in the Gulf, not drilling, for a month or six months while paying $100k to $500k A DAY in lease costs? Here's a hint. Several have already announced that they are pulling anchor and moving to more amenable locales off the shore of a rational country that understands the law of supply and demand. When they bring in wells there, another country will reap severance taxes and we will pay through the nose for the oil that is produced, worsening our balance of payments.

    June 11, 2010 at 12:53 p.m.