Y'all are a bunch of wankers!

Bush the Environmentalist

So Bush has a "Solar America" initiative that is investing millions in solar technologies. And now he is working on an ethanol partnership with Brazil.

Of course I don't like either of these developments since it creates problems for my agenda that Bush is an oil crony against the environment.

So how to will spin what he is doing to show that he is an extremist right winger who hates the environment and alternative energy?
Permalink Radical Leftist 
March 9th, 2007 1:12am
All he has to do is spend enough money on carbon credits and he's as good as Gore.
Permalink Send private email Ward 
March 9th, 2007 1:22am
> So Bush has a "Solar America" initiative that is investing millions in solar technologies.

Sweet, so that's like what... 15 minutes in Iraq?

Cost of Iraq war could surpass $1 trillion
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11880954/

Iraq war is costing $100,000 per minute
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002780385_spending03.html
Permalink Send private email ~~~x 
March 9th, 2007 1:29am
> So how to will spin what he is doing to show that he
> is an extremist right winger who hates the environment
> and alternative energy?

You could mention he's 6 years too late. You could mention ethanol is a waste of resources. You could mention they aren't doing much else.

It's something like Clinton going to a sexaholics workshop.
Permalink son of parnas 
March 9th, 2007 1:35am
you could mention SAI is corporate welfare

Cree Inc.
$2,268,328

Light Prescriptions Innovators LLC
$1,408,473

Philips Electronics North America
$2,604,997

General Electric Company
$4,086,976

          ......

you could mention it is dwarfed by the billions in royalty relief given to oil and gas companies in royalty reductions on oil and gas taken from government land.

you could mention that the FY08 budget cuts Low-income home energy assistance program by 44%.  5.6 million families receive energy assistance.  75% of them report incomes of 20K or below.
Permalink Nathan Green 
March 9th, 2007 1:52am
All excellent recommendations! Keep them coming.

Ethanol is a suckers bet with corn for sure and is nothing more than a government welfare program to benefit Bush's red state farming cronies.

But is it the same with the sugar beets? I thought Brazil was actually making money on that? If Bush is meeting with them, maybe he is thinking of going with sugar beet ethanol in the US. If that is the case, then I will not be able to say it is a losing proposition. We must stop Bush from promoting sugar beets, yes? Wait until Hillary/Obama '08 is in office, and THEN we start with sugar beets and it is all Hillary's idea, suggested to her by Obama based on a technology he saw growing up as a youth in Africa. That will play well.
Permalink Radical Leftist 
March 9th, 2007 1:54am
Sugar cane I believe, not sugar beet.

Any biomass is fuel. And since you're burning it, it doesn't matter if it's GM or grown with pesticides - nothing's gonna survive the incide of a Chevy big block. Purely fuel-intended crops can be grown at a much more efficient rate than food crops.
Permalink Send private email Flasher T 
March 9th, 2007 9:34am
"All he has to do is spend enough money on carbon credits and he's as good as Gore."

See, if this is good enough, why the fuck doesn't the government just introduce an environment tax to buy carbon credits in bulk for the entire population? So the ecomentalists can get off our backs.
Permalink Send private email Flasher T 
March 9th, 2007 9:36am
Oh, come on.  This is "Open Skies" Bush -- who's idea of reducing pollution is to change the rules on what pollution is.

This is "Save the Forests" Bush -- who's idea of saving the forest is to cut it down before a forest fire destroys all that lovely timber.

So you can bet this new Bush is motivated by the same things.  By the way, did you know that making corn into alcohol uses more energy (by burning natural gas) than you get out in alcohol?  So you're NOT reducing "CO2 emissions", merely reducing "dependence on foreign oil". 

BFD.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
March 9th, 2007 10:26am
And he doesn't hate the environment.  He doesn't CARE about the environment.  He'll run it flat if it gets in the way of oil profits, but there's no animosity there.

It's all about "unintended consequences".  His list of things that "just go bad" without his intent seems to be much larger than most people's.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
March 9th, 2007 10:28am
FUD, more like.

1) It takes more energy to produce food-grade subsidized corn than you can get from using it for fuel. So, like I said, you don't use food crops for internal combustion.

2) It still reduces CO2 emissions, as the plants do process it.
Permalink Send private email Flasher T 
March 9th, 2007 10:46am
You don't distill corn alcohol without heat.  You don't get heat without burning something.

But I'd like to see some data on the CO2 cost or savings.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
March 9th, 2007 11:12am
Obviously you burn the alcohol from the corn.
Permalink Send private email Aaron F Stanton 
March 9th, 2007 12:17pm
Unless it's been sitting in an oaken bucket for 12 years.
Permalink Send private email strawberry snowflake 
March 9th, 2007 12:21pm
No, the alcohol from the corn IS your product, you don't want to burn that.  And you don't get enough of that from the corn to power the process, anyway.

Brazil is using Sugar, which converts to alcohol much better than corn does.  Plus, they've got a hell of a lot of Sugar, so being 'inefficient' about it is not an issue.  Hopefully they can get the process cheaper than buying oil.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
March 9th, 2007 12:44pm
I know, I was being facetious.  Self sustaining reactions are pretty rare.
Permalink Send private email Aaron F Stanton 
March 9th, 2007 12:58pm

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: March, 2007 Other topics: March, 2007 Recent topics Recent topics