President Barack Obama designated new national monuments Friday in California, Nevada and Texas, setting aside millions of acres that are home to prehistoric rock carvings, Mammoth bones and popular outdoors destinations. The presidential move ran into immediate resistance from some Republicans, who accused Obama of a sneaky land grab that ignored the interests of local residents.
Why does EVERYTHING have to be contentious in our country? Setting aside areas like this is a NORMAL thing for Presidents to do. The Republicans used to be in favor of preserving lands for future generations (Teddy Roosevelt started the national park system, if my memory serves).
In any case, I think it's great. Otherwise, those areas would be ruined for future generations. There would be no more caveman rock carvings, and all that acreage would be covered in concrete and WalMarts in a generation. I didn't even know there were caveman rock carvings in America.
This is one of the things that Obama has done that I'm truly appreciative of.
I just wonder how much oil is on those lands, further locking oil sources up under federal control.
Obama appears not to do anything unless there's a political or agenda gain to be had.
**** oil. We have the technology to go beyond. And if not for prior presidents doing the same as Obama, the charge led by that republican TR, there'd be no Redwoods left, the Grand Canyon would be a vast reservoir, and all the mountains would be leveled.
All that seems unlikely.
Which technology to which are you referring to? So far, all the alternative 'green' technologies have fallen on their faces pretty hard, and are still not viable in the market without government life support.
Just have to look at the ridiculousness of Ethanol as a track record, or perhaps in Germany, heavily invested in solar and wind for some 20 years, and are now pulling it all down because they aren't market viable without government life support.
The world is technologically advanced enough to move beyond fossil fuels.
Why Solar Power is Permanently Inefficient | Somewhat Reasonable
The above was produced more than 30 years ago by Petr Beckmann, a professor of electrical engineering at the University of Colorado. The intervening decades have not altered the validity of what he wrote and depicted here because it is based on immutable physical and mathematical realities. Those realities are not altered by any amount of laws, subsidies, mandates requiring green energy usage, tax breaks, regulations, political promises, good intentions or democratic voting.
From the above illustration, you can readily grasp that solar power is extremely inefficient for automobile use, compared to the familiar fossil fuel (gasoline). Solar energy is similarly inefficient for other uses of fossil fuels.
But the opposition to it is overwhelming.
This is what keeps republicans, indeed the world dependent upon fossil fuels.
In the 2006 election cycle, oil and gas companies contributed over $19 million to political campaigns. 82% of that money went to Republican candidates, while the remaining 18% went to Democrats. In 2004, oil and gas companies contributed over $25 million to political campaigns, donating 80% of that money to Republicans. In the 2000 elections, over $34 million was contributed, with 78% of that money going to Republicans. Electric utilities also heavily favor Republicans; their contributions have recently ranged between $15–20 million.[4][5] From 2003-2006, the energy lobby also contributed $58.3 million to state-level campaigns. By comparison, alternative energy interests contributed around half a million dollars in the same time period.[6] During the United States elections in 2012 which includes the presidential election there was much spending by the lobbies.[7]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuels_lobby
**** oil. We have the technology to go beyond. And if not for prior presidents doing the same as Obama, the charge led by that republican TR, there'd be no Redwoods left, the Grand Canyon would be a vast reservoir, and all the mountains would be leveled.
I'm not certain, but I don't think Anomalism's comment was sarcastic or contentious.
Reality would seem to dictate otherwise.
Why Solar Power is Permanently Inefficient | Somewhat Reasonable
Study claims wind turbines are 'expensive and deeply inefficient' | Daily Mail Online
Solar Energy Is Inefficient and Impractical
Renewable energy standards inefficient, experts say in House testimony – Kansas Health Institute
Renewable Energy: So Useless That Even Greenie Google Gave up on it - Breitbart
In spite of your position, the reality is that green energy's problem is not a political one (other than the continual pushing of inefficient and ineffective green technology mandates down everyone else's throat regardless of the cost - gee sounds like ObamaCare!) - it's a physics problem.
Fundamentally all the green technologies can't recover or collect enough energy efficiently enough (there are energy losses in the collection mechanism) and quickly enough (time is money after all) to be market viable and competitive with other energy sources. Once they do, and once they can, the market will beat a patch to their doors and quickly adopt the market competitive green technologies.
This leaves us with two viable choices: 1) Petroleum based - hopefully with continued improvement in efficiency and pollution reduction and 2) Nuclear, be it fission (nasty radioactive by products and fuel wastes to deal with) or possible Thorium reactors - but I don't think that even a lab experiment has been built and tested yet, so call that one only theoretical.
For the Green lobby, nether s acceptable, so what sort of market viable energy sources do they offer? Distort the market with larger and more government subsidies!
Well, that's not really a solution when I want to heat my home, or drive to work, or turn on a light bulb, now is it?
The greatest experiment with this is Germany. For 20 years they've been investing in wind and solar energy generation, and within a short time of the subsidies being cut off, all of that is being decommissioned because it doesn't make financial sense to continue.
We should learn from Germany's experience on this, and not repeat it. At least not until the fundamental physics issue betters itself to making economic sense anyway.
Lol...
Uhm, no, no we don't.
Unless you're specifically refering to Nuclear, we actually DON'T have the technology to " go beyond " oil.
We learned our lesson when the world watched the enormous failure that was Germany's " green revolution " bite the dust...
Well when I see " we " learned our lesson, I mean we should have learned our lesson.
Wrong! Green energies problem is that black energy has a vastly larger and more powerful lobby with deeper pockets.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?