I know some will be tempted to bring other issues into this but let's try to keep it on
the environmental issues only.
And, I can't say that I agree with Obama on everything he's done (or not done yet)
regarding our Earth, but in general, he's on the right track.
Here's a link to show the two sides of this-Obama vs. Romney via Grist.
Article.
Your thoughts?
| Create a Free Account or Sign In to connect and share in green living and alternative energy forum discussions. |
7
From an environmental view only-Obama vs. Romney
Started by Shortpoet-GTD, Jul 05 2012 02:51 PM
42 replies to this topic
#3
Posted 05 July 2012 - 05:37 PM
Ok I read the article and got sick to my stomach, I basically knew where Romney stood but after reading the comparison, I am thinking if Romney wins its time to move to somewhere that understands how important alternative energy is, Maybe- Germany, South Korea, or Singapore.
I am just tired of individuals who sell themselves out for big coal and big oil.
I am just tired of individuals who sell themselves out for big coal and big oil.
#4
Posted 05 July 2012 - 05:59 PM
The article definitely doesnt' paint pretty picture for Romney but I keep wondering... how much impact does the President have on the environment and alternative energy.
And if it's NOT the president that has the influence who does? Because those are the politicians we need to be focusing on.
And if it's NOT the president that has the influence who does? Because those are the politicians we need to be focusing on.
#5
Posted 05 July 2012 - 11:23 PM
Making Cents, the President sets the agenda and the tone. How much he or she accomplishes depends on which party controls the House and Senate. But, you must remember that the President sets policy with the regulatory agencies.
Let's take Bush, for example. He did not believe in regulation. So, he appointed people to the EPA, FERC, and all those smaller departments that control mining, oil production, forestry, etc., who would follow his orders. Mostly he appointed people within the industries to run the regulatory arms of those agencies. Then, he set a policy of "unregulation", meaning he would not push agencies to enforce the regulations that were on the books. He had incredible power to change our course across the board.
I'm dismayed with Romney on most things, but his recent change of opinion on climate change is disconcerting. He used to be more level headed. From this list I see he is against fuel economy standards and clean energy jobs. I'm surprised in this day and age any politician is against fuel economy standards. Wouldn't a business person hail a new sector such as clean tech?
Let's take Bush, for example. He did not believe in regulation. So, he appointed people to the EPA, FERC, and all those smaller departments that control mining, oil production, forestry, etc., who would follow his orders. Mostly he appointed people within the industries to run the regulatory arms of those agencies. Then, he set a policy of "unregulation", meaning he would not push agencies to enforce the regulations that were on the books. He had incredible power to change our course across the board.
I'm dismayed with Romney on most things, but his recent change of opinion on climate change is disconcerting. He used to be more level headed. From this list I see he is against fuel economy standards and clean energy jobs. I'm surprised in this day and age any politician is against fuel economy standards. Wouldn't a business person hail a new sector such as clean tech?
#6
Posted 06 July 2012 - 03:37 PM
I was not kidding about the report making me sick to my stomach, I was so upset I could hardly get to sleep last night, and low and behold two hours later I awoke from a bad dream, mad as hell and unable to relax to get back to sleep, at 4:00 am I gave up and got up and went to the office to work.
We need to do something about this, but I don’t know what.
MakingCents asked the question regarding how much effect the president has in regard to alternative energy and the environment. My answer is more than you think; since President Obama came into office he has signed several Executive Orders and Presidential Directives regarding the environment and alternative energy. Here is an example of a few
October 5, 2009, President Obama signed Executive Order 13514, set sustainability goals for Federal agencies and focuses on making improvements in their environmental, energy and economic performance. The Executive Order required Federal agencies to submit a 2020 greenhouse gas pollution reduction target within 90 days, and to increase energy efficiency, reduce fleet petroleum consumption, conserve water, reduce waste, support sustainable communities, and leverage Federal purchasing power to promote environmentally-responsible products and technologies.
http://www.whitehous.../sustainability
The National Clean Water Framework on April 27, 2011, that affirms its comprehensive commitment to protecting the health of America's waters. The framework recognizes the importance of clean water and healthy watersheds to our economy, environment and communities, and emphasizes the importance of partnerships and coordination with states, local communities, stakeholders, and the public to protect public health and water quality, and promote the nation’s energy and economic security.
http://www.whitehous...ves/clean-water
On February 18, 2010, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) proposed steps to modernize and reinvigorate the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Administration has formed rapid response teams to help expedite the review process for transportation, transmission and renewable energy projects and improve the overall quality and timeliness of federal permitting and environmental reviews. These rapid response teams help to meet the goals of President Obama's memorandum on "Speeding Infrastructure Development through More Efficient and Effective Permitting and Environmental Review".
http://www.whitehous...initatives/nepa
This year the administration adopted the following directive.
“We can’t have an energy strategy for the last century that traps us in the past. We need an energy strategy for the future – an all-of-the-above strategy for the 21st century that develops every source of American-made energy.” - President Barack Obama, March 15, 2012 this policy accelerated alternative energy development across the United States in all areas. Like the name said the all the above strategy targets development based on best options for different areas of the United States, including solar, wind, bio-fuels, hydro, geothermal, hydrogen, waste to energy and so on. http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy
The Obama administration’s investment in clean energy is the largest in American history. The United States has nearly doubled renewable energy generation from wind, solar and geothermal sources since 2008. The White House reported that last year the United States reclaimed the title as the world’s leading investor in clean energy technologies, passing China, India and Germany. http://www.whitehous...rgy#energy-menu
Then factor in the Administrations empowerment of the EPA to cut mercury emissions, prosecute polluters, and mandate renewed focus on clean air and water.
After the Bush administrations concerted effort to reverse the role of the EPA, the Obama administration moved to re strengthen the agency.
Now these are just a few of the examples, I could find in a few minutes, If you do some digging you find that this administration has done more for the environment and energy than any previous administration.
Romney threatens all these advances and will bring back an era, like Bush of little or no regulation and oversight. Needless to say I am worried because the economy is getting the lions share of discussion. Few are discussing all the things the President has done for the environment and alternative energy and that’s a shame in my book.
In In addition, President Obama has repeatedly called on Congress to eliminate the wasteful tax breaks for the oil and gas industry, which would save American taxpayers $4 billion per year.
We need to do something about this, but I don’t know what.
MakingCents asked the question regarding how much effect the president has in regard to alternative energy and the environment. My answer is more than you think; since President Obama came into office he has signed several Executive Orders and Presidential Directives regarding the environment and alternative energy. Here is an example of a few
October 5, 2009, President Obama signed Executive Order 13514, set sustainability goals for Federal agencies and focuses on making improvements in their environmental, energy and economic performance. The Executive Order required Federal agencies to submit a 2020 greenhouse gas pollution reduction target within 90 days, and to increase energy efficiency, reduce fleet petroleum consumption, conserve water, reduce waste, support sustainable communities, and leverage Federal purchasing power to promote environmentally-responsible products and technologies.
http://www.whitehous.../sustainability
The National Clean Water Framework on April 27, 2011, that affirms its comprehensive commitment to protecting the health of America's waters. The framework recognizes the importance of clean water and healthy watersheds to our economy, environment and communities, and emphasizes the importance of partnerships and coordination with states, local communities, stakeholders, and the public to protect public health and water quality, and promote the nation’s energy and economic security.
http://www.whitehous...ves/clean-water
On February 18, 2010, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) proposed steps to modernize and reinvigorate the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Administration has formed rapid response teams to help expedite the review process for transportation, transmission and renewable energy projects and improve the overall quality and timeliness of federal permitting and environmental reviews. These rapid response teams help to meet the goals of President Obama's memorandum on "Speeding Infrastructure Development through More Efficient and Effective Permitting and Environmental Review".
http://www.whitehous...initatives/nepa
This year the administration adopted the following directive.
“We can’t have an energy strategy for the last century that traps us in the past. We need an energy strategy for the future – an all-of-the-above strategy for the 21st century that develops every source of American-made energy.” - President Barack Obama, March 15, 2012 this policy accelerated alternative energy development across the United States in all areas. Like the name said the all the above strategy targets development based on best options for different areas of the United States, including solar, wind, bio-fuels, hydro, geothermal, hydrogen, waste to energy and so on. http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy
The Obama administration’s investment in clean energy is the largest in American history. The United States has nearly doubled renewable energy generation from wind, solar and geothermal sources since 2008. The White House reported that last year the United States reclaimed the title as the world’s leading investor in clean energy technologies, passing China, India and Germany. http://www.whitehous...rgy#energy-menu
Then factor in the Administrations empowerment of the EPA to cut mercury emissions, prosecute polluters, and mandate renewed focus on clean air and water.
After the Bush administrations concerted effort to reverse the role of the EPA, the Obama administration moved to re strengthen the agency.
Now these are just a few of the examples, I could find in a few minutes, If you do some digging you find that this administration has done more for the environment and energy than any previous administration.
Romney threatens all these advances and will bring back an era, like Bush of little or no regulation and oversight. Needless to say I am worried because the economy is getting the lions share of discussion. Few are discussing all the things the President has done for the environment and alternative energy and that’s a shame in my book.
In In addition, President Obama has repeatedly called on Congress to eliminate the wasteful tax breaks for the oil and gas industry, which would save American taxpayers $4 billion per year.
#7
Posted 06 July 2012 - 04:16 PM
It's heart wrenching I know.
But the bigger problem is the voter suppression laws that so many republican governors have put into place.
People that want to vote for Obama, may not be able to.
It happened before, and the "supreme" court forced bushwacker down our throats. And we all how that turned out.
They fear the electorate will vote them out (you bet your butt we will) and have put a lock on it.
It's in several states now.
Most affected are seniors, students, and poor folks.
They can't get there, or if they do, many can't stand for hours in lines waiting at the DVM, or are so old,
they can't produce a birth certificate.
Just because your old shouldn't mean you can't vote.
Student id's are no longer valid.
But quess which id is valid?
You got it.
Gun owners.
http://www.bloomberg...l-election.html
http://thinkprogress...ourt/?mobile=nc
All those voters that put these extreme right wing baggers into office? Hope they're happy now.
People are dying all over the world for THE RIGHT TO VOTE-
and we're taking it away from folks.
But the bigger problem is the voter suppression laws that so many republican governors have put into place.
People that want to vote for Obama, may not be able to.
It happened before, and the "supreme" court forced bushwacker down our throats. And we all how that turned out.
They fear the electorate will vote them out (you bet your butt we will) and have put a lock on it.
It's in several states now.
Most affected are seniors, students, and poor folks.
They can't get there, or if they do, many can't stand for hours in lines waiting at the DVM, or are so old,
they can't produce a birth certificate.
Just because your old shouldn't mean you can't vote.
Student id's are no longer valid.
But quess which id is valid?
You got it.
Gun owners.
http://www.bloomberg...l-election.html
http://thinkprogress...ourt/?mobile=nc
All those voters that put these extreme right wing baggers into office? Hope they're happy now.
People are dying all over the world for THE RIGHT TO VOTE-
and we're taking it away from folks.
#8
Posted 06 July 2012 - 04:46 PM
FamilyTreeClimber, on 05 July 2012 - 11:23 PM, said:
Making Cents, the President sets the agenda and the tone. How much he or she accomplishes depends on which party controls the House and Senate. But, you must remember that the President sets policy with the regulatory agencies.
Let's take Bush, for example. He did not believe in regulation. So, he appointed people to the EPA, FERC, and all those smaller departments that control mining, oil production, forestry, etc., who would follow his orders. Mostly he appointed people within the industries to run the regulatory arms of those agencies. Then, he set a policy of "unregulation", meaning he would not push agencies to enforce the regulations that were on the books. He had incredible power to change our course across the board.
I'm dismayed with Romney on most things, but his recent change of opinion on climate change is disconcerting. He used to be more level headed. From this list I see he is against fuel economy standards and clean energy jobs. I'm surprised in this day and age any politician is against fuel economy standards. Wouldn't a business person hail a new sector such as clean tech?
Let's take Bush, for example. He did not believe in regulation. So, he appointed people to the EPA, FERC, and all those smaller departments that control mining, oil production, forestry, etc., who would follow his orders. Mostly he appointed people within the industries to run the regulatory arms of those agencies. Then, he set a policy of "unregulation", meaning he would not push agencies to enforce the regulations that were on the books. He had incredible power to change our course across the board.
I'm dismayed with Romney on most things, but his recent change of opinion on climate change is disconcerting. He used to be more level headed. From this list I see he is against fuel economy standards and clean energy jobs. I'm surprised in this day and age any politician is against fuel economy standards. Wouldn't a business person hail a new sector such as clean tech?
THis is a great point, appointing the heads of the agencies is a big impact.
#9
Posted 06 July 2012 - 07:06 PM
E3 wise, you pointed out something that I didn't even know the President had done. I think the Obama administration is either terrible with getting information out to the public or in this era of he said/she said news analysis it gets lost in translation. I think it's more of the later. When something the government does make it on the air, the analysis rarely tells us anything other than what someone's opinion of it is. PBS News Hour is about the only show I know that explains anything in depth anymore.
I want to point out that one other way a President is important. He or she can decide to do nothing. In 2001, the report that Clinton had ordered from Congress on Climate Change was completed. This was the scientific study that determined that we had 10 years to make voluntary changes to the way we do things. Then, after that time, we would have no choice. President Bush decided to shelve the study. Instead of acting on any of the recommendations, he chose to order another study that wouldn't be completed until 2006. So, inaction can have as much impact as action.
I want to point out that one other way a President is important. He or she can decide to do nothing. In 2001, the report that Clinton had ordered from Congress on Climate Change was completed. This was the scientific study that determined that we had 10 years to make voluntary changes to the way we do things. Then, after that time, we would have no choice. President Bush decided to shelve the study. Instead of acting on any of the recommendations, he chose to order another study that wouldn't be completed until 2006. So, inaction can have as much impact as action.
#10
Posted 07 July 2012 - 04:38 AM
I must say I agree with you on this administrations inability to get out positive information. It really is a disservice to the president. I think that part of the problem is that the president’s advisors are so focused on jobs and the economy that they do not want people to believe that there is anything distracting the president from job growth.
On your point of presidents doing nothing, I think you highlight the real issue of reduced oversight and allowing industries to police themselves. I was aware of the Bush administration shelving the report on climate change. They also did this with several studies showing the effect developing oil fields in the Gulf of Mexico off Florida’s coast and in the arctic wildlife refuge.
Romney is saying he will reverse years of work on alternative energy and the environment to stimulate jobs. It seems anything that brings job growth is great, no matter what effect it has on our energy future or the environment. My question is that in this race how do we get the message out to undecided’s that this administration has helped every American by investing time and political capital into clean air, water, recycling, and energy. If you can help me with that question I would be eternally grateful.
On your point of presidents doing nothing, I think you highlight the real issue of reduced oversight and allowing industries to police themselves. I was aware of the Bush administration shelving the report on climate change. They also did this with several studies showing the effect developing oil fields in the Gulf of Mexico off Florida’s coast and in the arctic wildlife refuge.
Romney is saying he will reverse years of work on alternative energy and the environment to stimulate jobs. It seems anything that brings job growth is great, no matter what effect it has on our energy future or the environment. My question is that in this race how do we get the message out to undecided’s that this administration has helped every American by investing time and political capital into clean air, water, recycling, and energy. If you can help me with that question I would be eternally grateful.
#11
Posted 07 July 2012 - 05:12 AM
FamilyTreeClimber, on 06 July 2012 - 07:06 PM, said:
I want to point out that one other way a President is important. He or she can decide to do nothing. In 2001, the report that Clinton had ordered from Congress on Climate Change was completed. This was the scientific study that determined that we had 10 years to make voluntary changes to the way we do things. Then, after that time, we would have no choice. President Bush decided to shelve the study. Instead of acting on any of the recommendations, he chose to order another study that wouldn't be completed until 2006. So, inaction can have as much impact as action.
Well, let's not forget who was "really" the president-chaney.
bush was just his "yes" puppet and chaney was going to protect his self interests for halliburton
at all costs via starting the war in Iraq, to easing (or eliminating) regulations on oil and gas drilling.
Thanks to his power and influence, gas fracking fluids are still secret.
"Thanks to their friend Dick Cheney, gas companies are exempted from any regulation—including requirements to
publicly disclose the chemicals they are using—under the Safe Drinking Water Act. In a 2005 energy bill, Cheney, a former Halliburton executive, personally pushed through what became known as the "Halliburton loophole," which won
fracking companies this exemption."
http://www.change.or...s-to-the-public
http://economistsvie...n-loophole.html
Sorry to veer off a bit, but this speaks to the fact that presidents (or their staff) can do whatever they
want with "their" people in congress.
mitt will do exactly the same thing because his campaign donors include big polluters that don't want
the "big bad government" regulating them.
#12
Posted 02 August 2012 - 02:26 PM
Just like everything else, he is short of knowledge and long on giving money to those wanting to take as much as they can from the earth. and give back nothing. Another one who wants to cut EPA regulations, when we need more..Doesn't understand the need or use for public lands. Okay. Send this man away. France, anywhere. He is sorely in need of understanding..
#13
Posted 02 August 2012 - 02:29 PM
artistry, on 02 August 2012 - 02:26 PM, said:
Just like everything else, he is short of knowledge and long on giving money to those wanting to take as much as they can from the earth. and give back nothing. Another one who wants to cut EPA regulations, when we need more..Doesn't understand the need or use for public lands. Okay. Send this man away. France, anywhere. He is sorely in need of understanding..
with people holding signs that were pro Ron Paul in Poland.
#14
Posted 02 August 2012 - 02:43 PM
Not to digress, but a simplier task no man has had, than to cross the pond, shake hands with Cameron, congratulate him on the games and leave. No, he has to break his arm patting himself on the back for "saving" the Utah Olympics with government money. I loved it when Cameron slapped him down, with "I guess you can have a successful Olympics in the middle of nowhere." What a dolt Romney is. Back to environmental matters. "o)
#15
Posted 02 August 2012 - 06:55 PM
artistry, on 02 August 2012 - 02:43 PM, said:
Not to digress, but a simplier task no man has had, than to cross the pond, shake hands with Cameron, congratulate him on the games and leave. No, he has to break his arm patting himself on the back for "saving" the Utah Olympics with government money. I loved it when Cameron slapped him down, with "I guess you can have a successful Olympics in the middle of nowhere." What a dolt Romney is. Back to environmental matters. "o)
tax evasion in hidden accounts-people still have to claim the amounts and report it-which he hasn't done)
so we can switch our focus back to Obama doing the right thing for the environment.
And hammering him on renewables.
Ok, all together now-
LAME DUCK. LAME DUCK. The only time things get done.
Oh and btw, to go totally off topic, the congress introduced 60 bills to rename post offices, (passed 26) but not one word
about fixing the massive problems with the post offices nationwide, right before they went on yet
another vacation. Unfriggingbelieveable.
End of rant-
back to eco goodies by someone in office???
#16
Posted 02 August 2012 - 07:03 PM
Artistry, I think part of the problem is how our news media functions (or doesn't function these days). There is very little reporting or investigative work on anything the government does whether it is good or bad. Instead, we get a lot of "he said/she said" reporting. They treat this as if it's giving coverage to both sides of an issue. In reality, it is lazy reporting.
What is reported on is given 30 seconds and very little insight. Mostly they look for the controversy. Birth control has been a focus on the news because of its addition to health insurances policies. The news media grabs on to stuff like that because it "sells". Then, they use talking points for either side to balance the conversation, but they do very little to set fact from fiction.
You know, today on the news they reported that solar power is starting to make a dent in California's residential energy usage. It's beginning to help ease use on the grid and lessen the risk of rolling blackouts like we had when Enron gamed our system. The increase has been with middle income home owners who have gotten some state or federal assistance to add solar to their houses. I doubt a positive like this will get much play nationwide. But, it shows that slowly but surely alternatives will make a difference. For Romney to claim that he'll roll back everything for the "good old days" is tantamount to national suicide. It ties our own hands when we should be open to the possibilities.
What is reported on is given 30 seconds and very little insight. Mostly they look for the controversy. Birth control has been a focus on the news because of its addition to health insurances policies. The news media grabs on to stuff like that because it "sells". Then, they use talking points for either side to balance the conversation, but they do very little to set fact from fiction.
You know, today on the news they reported that solar power is starting to make a dent in California's residential energy usage. It's beginning to help ease use on the grid and lessen the risk of rolling blackouts like we had when Enron gamed our system. The increase has been with middle income home owners who have gotten some state or federal assistance to add solar to their houses. I doubt a positive like this will get much play nationwide. But, it shows that slowly but surely alternatives will make a difference. For Romney to claim that he'll roll back everything for the "good old days" is tantamount to national suicide. It ties our own hands when we should be open to the possibilities.
#17
Posted 03 August 2012 - 04:22 AM
FamilyTreeClimber, on 02 August 2012 - 07:03 PM, said:
For Romney to claim that he'll roll back everything for the "good old days" is tantamount to national suicide. It ties our own hands when we should be open to the possibilities.
#18
Posted 03 August 2012 - 02:04 PM
LOL Shortpoet! I hope they are wrong, wrong, wrong!!!
At any rate, I can't understand the Republican idea that alternatives should be held back at all costs. I've always thought that part of their philosophy included fostering new industries. They used to believe in helping new business sectors succeed. I wonder when the automobile started to gain popularity if horse and buggy proponents tried to fight them, too? They can stand in the way of the progress being made by alternative energy businesses, but in the end, it's going to happen anyway.
At any rate, I can't understand the Republican idea that alternatives should be held back at all costs. I've always thought that part of their philosophy included fostering new industries. They used to believe in helping new business sectors succeed. I wonder when the automobile started to gain popularity if horse and buggy proponents tried to fight them, too? They can stand in the way of the progress being made by alternative energy businesses, but in the end, it's going to happen anyway.
#19
Posted 03 August 2012 - 02:11 PM
FamilyTreeClimber, on 03 August 2012 - 02:04 PM, said:
LOL Shortpoet! I hope they are wrong, wrong, wrong!!!
At any rate, I can't understand the Republican idea that alternatives should be held back at all costs. I've always thought that part of their philosophy included fostering new industries. They used to believe in helping new business sectors succeed. I wonder when the automobile started to gain popularity if horse and buggy proponents tried to fight them, too? They can stand in the way of the progress being made by alternative energy businesses, but in the end, it's going to happen anyway.
At any rate, I can't understand the Republican idea that alternatives should be held back at all costs. I've always thought that part of their philosophy included fostering new industries. They used to believe in helping new business sectors succeed. I wonder when the automobile started to gain popularity if horse and buggy proponents tried to fight them, too? They can stand in the way of the progress being made by alternative energy businesses, but in the end, it's going to happen anyway.
And good ole' Teddy was a republican.
This group would have run his butt out of town on a rail.
It's a rotten shame if you ask me.
Money. That's all they care about. (Oh, and renaming buildings evidently and going on vacations.)
#20
Posted 03 August 2012 - 06:38 PM
I usually try to stay non political so the following statement is from a purely personal view. I have been working in the alternative energy design and integration business for 22 years now. Take any president in that time and compare them to the amount of time, energy and money put into alternative energy development in the United States and President Obama wins hands down, I base this on several factors including not just amounts of money spent on the federal level for research and development, incentives, and integration but also energy policy which has a lot to do with how this country works toward its energy needs.
So I have two very important questions. 1. Why would a person who dismisses climate change and says we have hundreds of years of fossil fuels want to accelerate alternative energy development.
2. Says he will make America energy independent in eight years but has given no detail on how that would be accomplished.
My point I can say I want to eliminate all coal in 8 years but without detailing how I would do it the average person would say I am full of bull and also that it is impossible. Why can a person who has never had to work with Congress get away with these types of outrageous comments and still not be pressed for details.
President Obama’s all the above energy policy has accelerated all forms of alternative energy to include more wind production in four years, than in the last 10 years combined.
More solar development than in the last 25 years.
More bio-fuel, biomass, wave, hydrogen & Fuel cell and lastly the most comprehensive energy policy toward energy independence than in the last 40 and clean water, air and environmental stewardship.
Every President in the last 40 years has called for lessen our fossil fuel addiction, don’t believe me look at this video.
Now take it from someone who has dedicated their life to alternative energy development when I say that promises don’t change the world, actions do and when Congress has tried to sabotage alternative energy in the last four years this president has used executive orders and the power of the Department of energy to do more to bring alt energy into the mainstream than any other president- and also any other naysayer promising the world with no details, I think you know who I mean.
Lois Moore President
Environmental Power & Water Generation
So I have two very important questions. 1. Why would a person who dismisses climate change and says we have hundreds of years of fossil fuels want to accelerate alternative energy development.
2. Says he will make America energy independent in eight years but has given no detail on how that would be accomplished.
My point I can say I want to eliminate all coal in 8 years but without detailing how I would do it the average person would say I am full of bull and also that it is impossible. Why can a person who has never had to work with Congress get away with these types of outrageous comments and still not be pressed for details.
President Obama’s all the above energy policy has accelerated all forms of alternative energy to include more wind production in four years, than in the last 10 years combined.
More solar development than in the last 25 years.
More bio-fuel, biomass, wave, hydrogen & Fuel cell and lastly the most comprehensive energy policy toward energy independence than in the last 40 and clean water, air and environmental stewardship.
Every President in the last 40 years has called for lessen our fossil fuel addiction, don’t believe me look at this video.
Now take it from someone who has dedicated their life to alternative energy development when I say that promises don’t change the world, actions do and when Congress has tried to sabotage alternative energy in the last four years this president has used executive orders and the power of the Department of energy to do more to bring alt energy into the mainstream than any other president- and also any other naysayer promising the world with no details, I think you know who I mean.
Lois Moore President
Environmental Power & Water Generation
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users