GW Bush: "...diversify away from oil"

[liblady]

I'm sorry I didn't call you out for trying to pass quotes and numbers that others wrote more bluntly. I'm sorry you chose to "Bold" with no link ot the source in hopes people would think you came up with all those numbers on your own.

I'll GLADLY be the guy that didn't apologize for accusing you of "Bad Math" instead of just calling you out for plagiarizing. You can be the chicken little that said:


Carry on about the math comment Lib, keep trying to hide from your lies.

i don't lie, mr v. these are MY words:

are you forgetting that as we write that rig is still spewing oil at a pace of 2.5 million gallons a DAY? that's approximately equal to 8500 tons per day or 60,000 barrels. bp estimate, btw, and we are nowhere near a solution. already spilled equals 19-39 million gallons, arguable a very low estimate.

it's despicable how you avoid the truth. but so you.

 

[Renae]

i don't lie, mr v. these are MY words:

are you forgetting that as we write that rig is still spewing oil at a pace of 2.5 million gallons a DAY? that's approximately equal to 8500 tons per day or 60,000 barrels. bp estimate, btw, and we are nowhere near a solution. already spilled equals 19-39 million gallons, arguable a very low estimate.

it's despicable how you avoid the truth. but so you.

It's bad math.

8,500 tons of oil does not equal 2.5 million gallons.


Convert gallon to ton - Conversion of Measurement Units

Input 2,500,000 gallons you get 78728.48948375 tons

So, I was right, you = BAD MATH.

 

[Objective Voice]

Can Republicans continue to say no to a new energy strategy...

After re-reading my OP, I realize I made an omission. What I meant to say was "Can Republicans continue to say no to a new comprehensive energy strategy..."

As the Good Rev. has pointed out, Republicans and Democrats alike have both pushed their national alternative energy agendas since 2008, and although both sides have sought to pursue the same alternative/renewable energy sources, i.e., wind, solar, natural gas, Republicans moreso than Democrats have pushed harder for more drilling domestically (mostly off-shore and along the Outer Continental Shelf). The catch, of course, is a steady stream of tax credits for big oil industries which run counter to their political speak on reducing this nation's dependence on fossil fuels. Moreover, while the GOP's push on reducing oil dependency has had more to do with increasing domestic production than truly limiting foreign oil imports, as Gina points out (post #14) their overall strategy really doesn't call for a systematic reduction of oil production across the board. In fact, their "all-of-the-above" energy policy in 2010 is relatively the same as it was in 2008. (ABCNews video from 2008 linked here.) Hence, the reason GW Bush never sought to do something as simple as increase fuel efficiency standards in domestic automobiles* in nearly 30 years. The reason: There's money to be made in big oil! Not that there's a problem with that; just that as the GOP has called for creating incentives for small businesses to foster job growth so should government provide incentives to promote the expansion of new energy sources within the private sector. The GOP's latest energy policy doesn't provide alot of incentives in that regard.

America will never truly begin to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels until we start creating smarter energy alternatives in a reasonable timeframe so that this country is truly energy dependent. The auto industry is closely linked to big oil in that regard. Coal being another.

*To be fair, GW Bush did state back in 2005 that this country needed a new national energy policy to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. Unfortunately, he could never get Congress to work with him on a comprehensive energy policy. Even his own party was reluctant to incorporate alternative/renewable energy into their party mandate back then. So, I don't blame Dubyah as much as I blame the GOP in this regard. The article from the OP was the first time I'd ever read where he talked so favorably about the country's need to embrace alternative/renewable energy sources in contrast to emphasizing expansion of domestic drilling.

 

[Renae]

After re-reading my OP, I realize I made an omission. What I meant to say was "Can Republicans continue to say no to a new comprehensive energy strategy..."

As the Good Rev. has pointed out, Republicans and Democrats alike have both pushed their national alternative energy agendas since 2008, and although both sides have sought to pursue the same alternative/renewable energy sources, i.e., wind, solar, natural gas, Republicans moreso than Democrats have pushed harder for more drilling domestically (mostly off-shore and along the Outer Continental Shelf). The catch, of course, is a steady stream of tax credits for big oil industries which run counter to their political speak on reducing this nation's dependence on fossil fuels. Moreover, while the GOP's push on reducing oil dependency has had more to do with increasing domestic production than truly limiting foriegn oil imports, as Gina points out (post #14) their overall strategy really doesn't call for a systematic reduction of oil production across the board. In fact, their "all-of-the-above" energy policy in 2010 is relatively the same as it was in 2008. (ABCNews video from 2008 linked here.) Hence, the reason GW Bush never sought to do something as simple as increase fuel efficiency standards in domestic automobiles in nearly 30 years. The reason: There's money to be made in big oil! Not that there's a problem with that; just that as the GOP has called for creating incentives for small businesses to foster job growth so such government provide incentives to promote the expansion of new energy sources within the private sector. The GOP's latest energy policy doesn't provide alot of incentives in that regard.

America will never truly begin to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels until we start creating smarter energy alternatives in a reasonable timeframe so that this country is truly energy dependent. The auto industry is closely linked to big oil in that regard. Coal being another.

As long as the strategy is cheap, widely available energy driven by the market, let's do it.

Mandate energy sources always = higher prices.

 

[jujuman13]

In a speech given before the American Wind Energy Association, former Pres. GW Bush told the conference audience:



I must admit I'm shocked! He's a oil man, right? I mean, the speculation that he took this country to war w/Iraq for oil aside,

Whatever gave you that idea?

as best I can recall not once while he was in office did he attempt to put forth an energy package that included alternative energy solutions the way Pres. Obama has. So, I was very surprised when I came across the article (linked above) where he actually embraces alternative energy sources and actually advocated moving away from fossil fuels in the near future as early as within the next generation! The irony of it all!!

When one knows as he so obviously does, that Oil is in finite supply, it makes sense that some other fuel be found.

The sad thing is people are still downing Pres. Obama for wanting this country to shift away from our dependence on big oil and look towards renewable energy sources even while his predecessor is supporting such moves.

Not so, but Pres. Obama is apparently suggesting the switch can be made to electric powered vehicles immediately.
In this he is wrong in at least 2 points, electric vehicles can only power light passenger vehicles, also any changeover will have to be done on a gradual basis.
At the moment with the economy the way it is, not everyone can afford to buy the Government Motor electric vehicle.


Can Republicans continue to say no to a new energy strategy in light of hearing their former party leader embrace it? Stay tuned...

Republicans are anti Cap and trade because they see this as not merely a push towards development of alternative powered vehicles but primarily for what it is, another way of taxing the individual.
Until sufficient Nuclear power Stations are built so as to supply the entire US with electric power, the US will need to power up with coal as the fuel of choice, cap and trade would make electricity production exorbitantly expensive.

 

[liblady]

It's bad math.

8,500 tons of oil does not equal 2.5 million gallons.


Convert gallon to ton - Conversion of Measurement Units

Input 2,500,000 gallons you get 78728.48948375 tons

So, I was right, you = BAD MATH.

Conversion Calculator (barrels-tons, etc.)


1 barrel = 42 gallons, 63750 barrels = 2677500 gallons. = 8500 tons.

Conversion Calculator (barrels-tons, etc.)
Crude Oil
Natural Gas & LNG

8500 tons (metric)
10106,5 kilolitres
63750 barrels

you really have to remember we're dealing with OIL.

 

[Renae]

Conversion Calculator (barrels-tons, etc.)


1 barrel = 42 gallons, 63750 barrels = 2677500 gallons. = 8500 tons.

Conversion Calculator (barrels-tons, etc.)
Crude Oil
Natural Gas & LNG

8500 tons (metric)
10106,5 kilolitres
63750 barrels

you really have to remember we're dealing with OIL.

And, you're still wrong about how bad this spill is.

 

[liblady]

And, you're still wrong about how bad this spill is.

and you sir, are thick headed.

 

[UtahBill]

There are no, zero, zip alteratives for all our uses for oil, in the quantities that we need them.
We are not geographically located as well as Brazil, so we can't compete with them in the ethanol industry. They have mucho sugar cane due to a better climate, lots of arable land and water, not to mention fewer cars. Want to see an instant shortage of natural gas? Require the car makers to make half their cars burn only natural gas. Oh wait, we don't have a natural gas infrastructure in place yet. Most of rural America is still using propane, as there are no natural gas pipelines near them.
Natural gas, if it leaks,goes UP, a farily safe direction. Propane, if it leaks, goes down, collects around the tank, or under it, very dangerous if a spark gets to it.
It is laughable to hear a politician speak of using wind and solar to help us be less dependent on foreign oil. There are almost no uses for oil that electricity can be considered an alternative. Back in the 70's, yes, we used a lot of bunker oil to make electricity. Thanks to Jimmy Carter's energy policy, that is almost all gone. Less than 1% of our electricity comes from burning oil, if that much. So whatever happened to that damned democrats energy policy? Oh, yeah, the right reverend Ronald Reagan killed it. How stupid of him....and Speaking of Stupid, GWB can say all he wants about diversifying, but even he knows better. He is paying lip service to "alternatives" that are actually no more than supplements. We don't have an electricity problem, we have an OIL problem.

Apples and Oranges, people, apples and oranges....
If you have a shortage of apples, it makes no sense to plant orange trees...

 

[Gina]

*To be fair, GW Bush did state back in 2005 that this country needed a new national energy policy to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. Unfortunately, he could never get Congress to work with him on a comprehensive energy policy. Even his own party was reluctant to incorporate alternative/renewable energy into their party mandate back then. So, I don't blame Dubyah as much as I blame the GOP in this regard. The article from the OP was the first time I'd ever read where he talked so favorably about the country's need to embrace alternative/renewable energy sources in contrast to emphasizing expansion of domestic drilling.

But then 4 months later, he signed this:

The energy bill provides tax breaks and other incentives to encourage new nuclear plants, cleaner-burning coal facilities, and production of more oil and natural gas. It also offers incentives to produce energy from wind and other renewable sources and to make homes and office buildings more efficient.

"It's Christmas in August for big energy, and consumers get lumps of coal," said Anna Aurilio, legislative director for U.S. PIRG, an advocacy group that works on environmental and consumer issues.

The bill exempts oil and gas industries from some clean-water laws, streamlines permits for oil wells and power lines on public lands, and helps the hydropower industry appeal environmental restrictions. One provision would repeal a Depression-era law that has prevented consolidation of public utilities, potentially transforming the nation's electricity market.

The law also seeks to increase another kind of imported energy: liquefied natural gas. The legislation gives the federal government ultimate authority to approve new liquefied natural gas terminals, which supporters said would lead to more being approved.

...

Analysts said the biggest step lawmakers could have taken to reduce foreign oil dependence would have been to increase vehicle mileage standards. But Congress rejected that approach, saying doing so would result in the loss of U.S. auto jobs and the production of vehicles that are unsafe -- arguments disputed by environmentalists and some analysts. Instead, lawmakers focused on fixes backed by powerful lobbies and influential constituencies. Ethanol, for instance, is a big winner under the new law because it is often produced from corn, a popular and plentiful crop in the Midwest, where many states are considered up for grabs in next year's election.

Bush Signs Energy Bill, Cheers Steps Toward Self-Sufficiency - washingtonpost.com

As I said above, it's a shame Governor Bush was more progressive than President Bush.

The White House has raised several objections to the breakthrough energy bill recently negotiated by House leaders. But there’s an interesting and ironic backstory to one of these complaints....

What the letter does not say, and what the White House would rather we not remember, is that as governor of Texas, Mr. Bush enthusiastically signed into law a renewable electricity mandate that was part of a broader bill encouraging deregulation and greater competition in the utility industry.

This 1999 mandate was extraordinarily forward-looking for its time (22 states have such mandates now) and the results were immediate. Texas now produces more wind power than any other state, to the great benefit of consumers of electricity and farmers who rent out their land for the giant turbines that create the power. Texas actually accounted for more than half the new wind energy installed nationwide this year.

Bush’s Alternative Energy Flip-Flop - The Board Blog - NYTimes.com

 

[Deuce]

YouTube - president bush vs governor bush

Bush vs. Bush

 

[washunut]

In a speech given before the American Wind Energy Association, former Pres. GW Bush told the conference audience:



I must admit I'm shocked! He's a oil man, right? I mean, the speculation that he took this country to war w/Iraq for oil aside, as best I can recall not once while he was in office did he attempt to put forth an energy package that included alternative energy solutions the way Pres. Obama has. So, I was very surprised when I came across the article (linked above) where he actually embraces alternative energy sources and actually advocated moving away from fossil fuels in the near future as early as within the next generation! The irony of it all!!

The sad thing is people are still downing Pres. Obama for wanting this country to shift away from our dependence on big oil and look towards renewable energy sources even while his predecessor is supporting such moves. Can Republicans continue to say no to a new energy strategy in light of hearing their former party leader embrace it? Stay tuned...

I am not sure that you are accurate in saying that Bush did not push alernative energy. I remember people laughing at him because he talked about something like switch grass to turn into fuel. The ironic thing is that the dems at the time would not give Bush a victory here ot comprehensive immigration reform. Obama is pushing it now where was he when Bush called for it in 2007?

It is sad that politics gets in the way of the national good.

 

[UtahBill]

The technology isn't there yet for switch grass, or weeds, or stuff like that. As it is, it takes a lot of energy to convert corn to ethanol. Too bad the technology isn't here yet to use corn stalks, straw, or any of the other waste products our farms have to dispose of...
Presidents can talk, but that is all it is. Until someone presents an actual bill to congress, it is just talk.

 

[washunut]

The technology isn't there yet for switch grass, or weeds, or stuff like that. As it is, it takes a lot of energy to convert corn to ethanol. Too bad the technology isn't here yet to use corn stalks, straw, or any of the other waste products our farms have to dispose of...
Presidents can talk, but that is all it is. Until someone presents an actual bill to congress, it is just talk.

I agree that the government should be sponsoring much more R&D in this area.

 

[UtahBill]

One promising idea that I recently read about is actually an old project started during the Carter administration. It involves using algae to make fuel compatible to diesel fuel. It is very water intensive, though, and needs a mild climate. It was under funded once Reagan got in, but may be back on the front burner now, I hope.
Certainly we have plenty of water in those states that border the major rivers....

 

[washunut]

If we are serious about nto having to drill for oil thousands of feet under the gulf and want to be less dependent of the middle east not sure why we are not hunting all over the place. Why do we not have a project, like Kennedy's promise to land on the moon in a decade.

It is nearly 40 years since the oil embargo. We are dependent on foreign sources and the stuff is killing our planet.

I want an all out effort not the junk going through congress. We should not say that is the best we can do, do better!

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I think just as big a story is how it was the environmentalists who forced these rigs past the continental shelf..... making drilling a little more dangerous.

 

[Deuce]

If we are serious about nto having to drill for oil thousands of feet under the gulf and want to be less dependent of the middle east not sure why we are not hunting all over the place. Why do we not have a project, like Kennedy's promise to land on the moon in a decade.

It is nearly 40 years since the oil embargo. We are dependent on foreign sources and the stuff is killing our planet.

I want an all out effort not the junk going through congress. We should not say that is the best we can do, do better!

A smooth transition is best for everyone. A drastic, sudden change can be catastrophic economically. It will cost many trillions of dollars to switch off fossil fuels entirely. We can't shoulder that burden over a short period of time. We need a significant shift in direction as soon as possible, but going "all out" may not be the best plan.

 

[washunut]

Granted. But like a lot of things in America ( debt, regulation, immigration, taxes to name a few) we are too dependent on choosing between unreliable foreign sources or drilling where it is technologically challenging. Just think we would be better off if we could create domestic industries that allowed us to sustain a way of life without the problems so much reliance on oil is giving us.

 

[washunut]

A smooth transition is best for everyone. A drastic, sudden change can be catastrophic economically. It will cost many trillions of dollars to switch off fossil fuels entirely. We can't shoulder that burden over a short period of time. We need a significant shift in direction as soon as possible, but going "all out" may not be the best plan.

My position is not to jettison the use of oil and hurt our economy. Rather I would like to see a giant R&D program that will strengthen our economy. Other than service stuff our economy is based on tech and financials. This R&D will be another leg to the stool of our economy. R&D can lead to industries we can't even imagine right now.