Democratic Diva

Donna,

” getting 15% of our energy from renewable sources by 2025, hangs in the balance. The RES is where we need to be going policy-wise for a variety of reasons, not the least of which are job creation and the fact that traditional fossil fuel costs are projected to go up in the future while renewables like solar and wind are getting cheaper. (Yes, Alan, I know they’re more expensive now. I’m talking about the future.) Plus, there’s that hippie girlie climate stuff to consider, and most people do consider it a looming problem. ”

For now, I will address only your job creation assertion. You say that the RES will create jobs. I say it will destroy jobs. One of us does not know what they are talking about.

Your party, the Democrats are on the defensive this year because of a lack of jobs. Now if RES really created jobs, why not go for 100% instead of 15% ? The resulting boom in employment would guarantee your continuing power.

How about we shift to Washington? Pelosi got carbon emission limits, mandates for renewable energy for utilities, and electric car subsidies through the House.

Harry Reid cannot get most of this stuff through the Senate.. Why? If this stuff would help lower unemployment, Democrats would stay in power. But, even Senate Democrats know that this is all BS. They know it will kill jobs in such energy rich states as Alaska and Louisiana. Senators Begich and Landrieu would be hurt.

Now tell me where I am in error.

Now if RES really created jobs, why not go for 100% instead of 15% ? The resulting boom in employment would guarantee your continuing power.

Fail, Alan. No one, and I mean no one, is suggesting that 100% renewable energy is possible in the next couple decades.

But hey, going by your reasoning, since we currently get less than 2% of our energy from renewables here in the U.S. we really ought to be at full employment. Right? Oh wait, seems fossil fuels aren’t an endless font of jobs either.

False dichotomies are Teh Stupid.

I love that the democrats want electric cars to be subsidized, yet oppose fossil fuel use? Duh, where do they think the electircity comes from? Oh yeah wind power? We have a surplus of that in DC, so harness all that hot air and generate electricity for cars. I am actually in favor of alternative energy, most people are, however, now is not the time to take my hard earned money from me, to raise the cost of everything I buy and put small business out of business. Small businesses are the economic engine of this country,why force them to go under while Nancy flys a private plane, at tax payers expense, because it is inconvenient to have to re fuel. Fly comercial Nancy and lower your carbon foot print.

Donna,

” But hey, going by your reasoning, since we currently get less than 2% of our energy from renewables here in the U.S. we really ought to be at full employment. Right? ”

Interesting piece of logic. If energy production were the sole factor in whether there was full employment, then it would be correct.

During George Bush’s reign of terror, unemployment averaged 5.4%. The only reason it was even that high, was averaging in the last 2 years of higher numbers. Coincidentally those bad years were the years, ‘your’ people controlled Congress.

But, that also means that during the good years unemployment was 4.5%, which statistically ‘is’ full employment. It might have been even better, if Bush had not caved to the Iowa Farm Cartel and supported mandating 10% corn ethanol in my gasoline.

So logically, if we had full employment during part of the Bush years, and decent unemployment overall, all during 2% renewable energy production, then and now, I wonder what the ‘X’ factor is?

What is different during the 2% Obama years and the 2% Bush years? Bush ran up hundreds of Billions in deficits on tax cuts for the rich and two unpopular wars. Obama ran up close to a trillion because of pork barrel stimulus.

Let’s see, wars and tax cuts equal 5.4% unemployment. Stimulus equals 9.5% unemployment. I still do not see what the difference is.

Donna,

Oh, I neglected to give you this further example of why I hate left wing green energy schemes. They are inherently corruptible. Whenever a big pile of money sits in front of politicians, they are easily influenced to misuse it.

In California even the ‘greens’ feel Corn ethanol is a waste of money. That did not stop the California ethanol industry from getting a chunk of state money.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-ethanol-20100828,0,212526.story

Sure Alan, it’s only “left wing energy schemes” that are corruptible and misused by politicians and greedy business people. Manly right wing energy schemes such as the coal, oil, and nuclear industries are always politically and ethically pristine.

Donna,

When even the left wingers who hatched the tax and steal scheme say that the money is being misused by bailing out the evil Ethanol business people, I’d say you got a problem.

That problem is competence. You can’t even stop the money from going where you specifically forbade it to go .

I trust the most greedy slimey coal, oil, and nuclear executive a lot more than I trust the angelic, incompetent, do gooder Democrat who thinks he can micro manage a modern economy.

Again, I’ve seen this all before. I am 54 and much older than you. I lived through the false promises of Chimmey Carter. The best thing about him was his brother Billy.

I trust the most greedy slimey coal, oil, and nuclear executive a lot more than I trust the angelic, incompetent, do gooder Democrat who thinks he can micro manage a modern economy.

Now that is just sad. You’re willing to sacrifice the future of your children and grandchildren to the cult of anxious masculinity.