I'm NOT saying it's "one thing alone", but you are kidding yourself if you think America has been "going green" for 30 plus years...

Conservatives keep saying we need to "save America" for our "children and grandchildren", yet they don't seem to care about the environment! I don't get it??

Jo-An

My oldest child is 33 years old. I remember the solar panel salesman trying to sell me panels for my home before my child was born. So I am not kidding anybody.

Conservatives say "we have to stop taxing and spending" to enable our children and grandchildren to have a good life and enjoy the fruits of their labor. What is wrong with that? You say that conservatives don't seem to care about the environment? I haven't heard any conservatives say that. I do hear progressives/liberals say "the conservatives want dirty air and water" but just because some nut says something it doesn't make it true.

JH. you state "This country will always need oil." No, not true. The oil will be gone. Either 50,or so years. The supply is not limited, not does the earth redo the oil supply. We need to come up with something else, either now or before the oil leaves the United States. That is one of the reason the oil reserves were capped to begin with. Use other countries oil and then ours. It is just the OPEC has gotten out of control, and our past government allowed it.

It may not be battery power and/or wind, but it will be something. It seems the insight of the manufacturing United States have become "can't do it". It used to be of course we can, and we did.

To..David"""

humanevents ..hasn't that all been debunked years ago...

hey JH... increase our domestic oil production? You do realize we are an EXPORTER of gasoline at this point don't you? We make more gasoline than we consume already as it is. So what will increasing production do? Learn how commodities work.

The problem is that with today's technology, green is capable of handling the needs. Wind mills and solar just don't provide enough energy day and night, good and bad weather. Hydroelectric is good, but you can't put up damns anymore because of environmental concerns.

To..David """

Sorry there David but you do.." spew unsubstantiated rhetoric and baseless "Facts"...everyday...

we've danced this dance before...

Realist, algae oil has been kept under wraps since the mid 1980's. It is a VERY viable green energy that would get us off of our crude dependency but they refuse to put it into production and I believe the cost to manufacture is somewhere around $45 per barrel. But don't quote me on that price. It was years ago that I read it.

Though I do agree most green energies aren't quite there yet, Algae oil can be there VERY quickly. but big oil doesn't want that.

skiing111, I know about oil from algae, but there is no evidence that it is being suppressed by anybody. There are a lot of people trying to produce fuel from Algae, but it hasn't been demonstrated commercially and it doesn't have anything to do with the oil companies suppressing it. Estimates are that with subsidies, it could reach price parity with oil in 2018. It might be a little sooner with the rising oil prices, but it isn't ready now or in the next few years. That being said, I would rather give the subsides to the companies trying to create fuel from algae, than the oil companies or ethanol producers.

We Pennsylvanians are going to soon drill oil out in western Pennsylvania.The only thing in our way is enviormental activists(THAT ARE NOT EVEN FROM PENNSYLVANIA).My dad(85)owns about 50 acres of land with tons of oil under it.We are not going to let enviormentalists say what we can and can not do with OUR land.

Jo-ann, you are welcome to go green. That is your choice. But don't tell me what I need to do.

To..David"""

I answered that several times ...it was a silly argument ...

And meanwhile we keep killing the Earth so oil corps can get richer. No wonder God is pissed with humanity...such foolish idiots.

If Thomas Edison were alive today, the anti-science, anti-progress GOP would have lynched him as a heretic.

.

@JO-AN

Why, why, why, do you think it's okay to force an economy to do something against its will when going green is a progression not a demand? In a free market demand will drive technology. Your government has proved time and time again that subsidizing green energy just bankrupts companies and wastes tax dollars. We will go "green" (what a stupid word) one day but as long as we're sitting on billions of barrels of oil that will last dozens of generations to come, why, why, why are liberals so hell bent on ignoring one of our most abundant resources?

There are billions to be made by the elite lawmakers if they FORCE "green" energy. It is not economically sound at this time but one day it will be. It's ALWAYS about money, don't even fool your simple mind by thinking that these liberal lawmakers want to hug the earth. There's a lot of money to be made off this stuff and all they have to do is convince the really gullible people that humans can control the climate, then voila, money in the bank baby. If you think I'm wrong you 'aint' to bright.

We're sitting on oil, oil companies make billions, we use a whole bunch of oil and we've got enough of it to last over a hundred years. Do you really think that when we ACTUALLY start running out that a newer technology won't be in full swing. This crap is not going to happen over night so stop pretending that $10 gas will suddenly cause us to all go out and by a Prius. If that happened how do you think we're going to produce all the power needed to charge those cars? Yeah I know, wind and solar right? Wake up!

There is no such thing as man made global warming, but if you want to personally write the check to subsidize everything the government does be my guest. By the way, that's over 200k for every Chevy Volt. I'll take my subsidy in gold please.

If big oil companies are making BILLIONS in profits, then why should we subsidize them?

This is just more big goverment give away brought on through loobyist...

The oil companies are making approx, ten percent profit....look it up.

"Republican presidential contenders and GOP leaders in Congress denounced the idea and called on Obama to take further steps to expand oil production in the United States" It seems that the republicans are more concerned with profits and no taxes on the wealthy or themselves...while making sure that what middle class is left carries all the burden.

What all you right wing folks fail to realize is that we are close to the tipping point for out planet. If we pull all of the oil out of the ground and burn it we doom our children to a horrible fate by destroying this ecosystem.

The Great Carbon Bubble

World's oceans in peril

sing-sing, should we all starve and freeze to death, and leave the oil in the ground, while we kumbaya about "we are the World" bs?

There is an algae plant down in Arizona somewhere, I read about it recently. They are trying to produce ethanol from it, not oil. I must admit I am a conservative Republican, so bash away. I happen to like solar, wind, etc, and grew up where most electrical power was hydro (water). However, both solar and wind require huge battery banks if they are to be anything other than back-up or supplemental systems. The US has an abundant supply of both coal and natural gas, and they should be fully exploited. The problem with the president's idea to end subsidies to the oil companies is that will directly and immediately raise prices, I would not even attempt to guess by how much. Do you really think that if the subsidies end, and the companies suddenly are paying billions more in taxes, that they will not pass the costs on to us? Ending the subsidies is a good thing, I don't think ANY company should receive federal subsidy money (and big oil is only one of the many recipients). At this time, though, it is going to hurt us really badly in our personal bank accounts.

Jon, the subsidies amount to about two billion a year, in a four trillion budget. I don't think it is any great accomplishment if we do end the subsidies. If I received a two billion dollar subsidy, that that would be monumental. Small drilling companies get most of the subsidies, ad it could cost us much more in the long run to cut them out. Those small drillers are American drillers for the most part.

"Why do American citizens have to show a government issued ID to prove there a U.S. citizen and have to pay a $25 background check to excercize there Second Amendment Consitutionly protected rights to own and purchase firearms but how dare any one suggest that someone should have to prove there a U.S. citizen to vote"

....ummm because you're probably not going to kill anyone with your vote, even if you're a deranged teabirther?

So the brainless hypocrites of the right wing lunatic fringe are now in favor of subsidies and bail outs purely because President Obama has called to have them abolished?

I just want to embrace the irony of this moment and savor it forever!

I love how all the right wing idiots rant and rail against using any money at all to help American citizens. Whether it be social safety nets, education, infrastructure or whatever. The do nothing congress even obstructed efforts to pay for the medical costs of 9-11 first responders and veteran's benefits.

But try to take away BILLIONS a year in welfare for oil companies and watch out, they get rabid!

Subsidies were intended for new industries and for struggling industries. Not the most profitable industries on the planet, who are having record years of profits the last 3 years while all of us SUFFER for their increased wealth.

They don't need handouts. And you all damn well know it. Whatever parroted talking points you regurgitate out here you have to know that.

And for those railing against green subsidies... we spend far less on green subsidies when they fall directly under the notion of new or struggling industries that subsidies were meant for.

California currently produces 11.6% of it's energy needs from renewable energy sources. The number is over 20% if you include hydroelectric. The state is currently building several new solar and wind fields in various locations. So don't you uneducated boobs tell me it's not viable. Your talking point doesn't make it true. We'll continue to lead the nation while you naysayers repeat your oil company propaganda and stick your heads in the sand.

http://www.energy.ca.gov/renewables/

P.S. I find it hilarious how all the sudden people on the right get all environmentally conscious when it's a solar plant or a wind plant going up. Kind of like how they got all anti-war when Obama did Libya in 3 months for the cost of 2 weeks of Iraq and no US casualties....

You people are living in the past. But I bet it won't stop you from adopting the successful models and technologies my state comes up with once you have no options because the oil is gone.... it hasn't stopped you in the past.

"So power and greed ran riot, contaminated and pillaged everything, and held nothing sacred or worthy of respect until (the Romans) plunged themselves into their own destruction." - Sallust, Roman Historian 35 BC

The bottom line is that NOBODY is defending the oil subsidies here. They try to change the subject to green failures and spending concerns and... just about anything but the real subject here.

Do this Obama! The issue is real, the timing perfect, the argument sound, and the opposition is in the dirt.

LMarcT

Do you realize who is the opposition?

Mary Landrieu and Mark Begich

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/11/mary-landrieu-mark-begich-oil_n_860743.html

Rick,

The main difference between the Republican and Democrat parties is that the Republicans are rigid, rules based, and keep their member in line with clubs. The democrats, on the other hand, are free to speak, free to vote, and are NOT otherwise "controlled" by party leaders.

In this case, these two Democrats have three masters... 1) what's right for the country, 2) what's right for their state, and 3) what the Democrat party wants. Apparently #2 trumps all. When push comes to shove the state's electorate own's their re-election. Theirs is a position on jobs versus the national debt.

$4 Billion for all of the oil and gas companies combined.... Yet Obama gave GM $14 BILLION in tax breaks alone, on top of the bailout money.

Guess it's OK as long as it is being used to buy union votes.

GM's sweetheart tax deal

"The U.S. Treasury is giving up $14 billion in tax revenue because of a sweetheart deal it's giving General Motors.

"Since the company shed $30 billion in debt during bankruptcy, it should have wiped out most of the tax break...But somehow, that never happened, and the automaker was able to keep most of its tax breaks, essentially receiving a $14 billion "gift" from the government.

While it's unclear why GM was allowed to carry over its losses, some experts insist that GM got preferential treatment...the tax break was just another example of how GM's bankruptcy process was unlike any previous bankruptcies.

One reason the government might have let General Motors claim the loss, was to reduce the perceived cost of the bailout, said Linus Wilson, finance professor at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette.

Also, the fact that GM kept the tax breaks made its stock more attractive at the time of its initial public offering last November, Wilson said."

http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/23/news/companies/gm_bailout/index.htm

The hypocrisy in all of this is that the government subsidizes anything. It is time to end all subsidizes, re-write the tax code, and let people pick and choose where they spend their dollars. As if the government spends our money wisely, they spend for perks, IOU's, and to buy votes. Our tax code is totally political and it is bloated with tax breaks and loopholes for those with enough money to buy congress. Cherry picking this one subside is hardly solving anything, it is nothing more then political theater and more avoidance of finally fixing the entire system.

Point is here, we don't need to be paying these sons-a-bitches to rip us off. Additionally, we need to regulate the "speculative" and "hedge fund" industries. Manipulation is killing the American middle class, and poor.

I believe that we need to reduce our dependency of fossil fuels for many reasons but global warming is not one of them. The problem is going green without pushing the nation into the poor house. I do not believe that the White House has offered a practical solution. As far as the economy goes, they seem to be making random guesses.

This article is very short on information. Exactly what are these special considerations;what motivated them in the first place; how have things changed; what will be the anticipated effect of gas prices both near and long term; how much new revenue will actually be derived; and what is the government going to do with the money? The President seems to be calling for and taking economic action without full regard for the economic consequences. Year ago the President promised that he would cut the deficit in half by the end of his first administration. According to the White House the President is not going to keep his promise. In his state of the union speech the President talked about starting to pay down the National Debt yet his White House is forecasting huge deficits every year for at least a decade. When the stimulus bill was being considered the President's organization issued a report forecasting what would happen to unemployment as a function of passage of the stimulus bill. According to the report unemployment has been worse that if the government took no action at all yet the federal government has piled up all this additional debt. There is a credibility problem here.

The President needs to be reminded of some words of wisdom that were spoken back in March of 2006. The words were as true then as they are today.

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America 's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, "the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."
~ Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006

More election year BS from Obama.

Fake populist BS at that. Obama knows congress is not going to get rid of the subsidies so he can pretend to be on the public's side on this issue.

skiing111 yes, there are alternatives, but what no ones seems to be talking about is the lobbying power of the oil companies. Money talks.....and greed (as we know) runs amuck.

Dangerous mind--CA produces 11 percent of its energy from renewable sources? Gee, HOW many days of the year does CA have SUNSHINE? Solar is a fairly viable option in an area with LOTS of sunshine and very few 'bad weather' conditions like extreme heat/cold, tornados, hurricanes, hail storms, wind storms and just not that much sunshine. And they STILL only produce 11 percent of their energy in renewables. And remember, for most of the year, CA residents do not need to heat or cool their homes. (my son LIVES in LA, and he does not have a furnace, and only a small window unit AC that he usually only uses on vent.)

Now, ME--I live in MO, and we don't HAVE that much sun in the winter, and not enough in the summer to power AC in 100 degree weather with hades like humidity. We do use heat pumps, but most did NOT until the price came down drastically. Wind? Nope, not consistent enough, and too many trees.

But heck, CA cannot even provide themselves with enough WATER. And the time is coming when neighboring states are going to 'cut them off', in which case CA will be burning a lot of oil to de-salinate the Pacific Ocean.

But hey--if you want to make this country more GREEN, and don't mind IMPOSING it on people, how about if we start LIMITING family size? I've been making the point for YEARS that we don't NEED to be allowing a million EXTRA people to emigrate here legally, we're overcrowded enough as it is. And if we ARE going to let anyone come here, they need to be able to prove they have the skills to be not only self supporting, but beneficial to the US. And don't get me started on the ILLEGALS here, most barely literate, most unable to speak English, and most unable to do anything to benefit this country, but PERFECTLY willing and able to crank out three times the number of kids as Americans do, in order to increase their ties and hopefully be granted an amnesty.

If we want to "protect" the world from GLOBAL warming, we should START with announcing that we will no longer be aiding and abetting the over population of it. And that INCLUDES over farming (and over fertilizing ) our land to feed people whose parents had NO idea of how they would EVER be able to take decent care of them.

Goodnight
Sunshine-READ IT ALL!!!

Germany is cutting
solar-power subsidies

because they are expensive and inefficient.

By Bjørn Lomborg|Posted
Saturday, Feb. 18, 2012, at 7:30 AM ET

Windows covered in
solar panels in Munich, Germany

Christof

Stache/AFP/Getty Images.

Germany once prided
itself on being the “photovoltaic

world champion”, doling out generous subsidies—totaling more than $130 billion,

according to research from Germany’s Ruhr University—to citizens to invest in

solar energy. But now the German government is vowing to cut the subsidies

sooner than planned and to phase out support over the next five years. What

went wrong?

Subsidizing green
technology is affordable only if it is

done in tiny, tokenistic amounts. Using the government’s generous subsidies,

Germans installed 7.5 gigawatts of photovoltaic capacity last year, more than

double what the government had deemed “acceptable.” It is estimated that this

increase alone will lead to a $260 hike in the average consumer’s annual power

bill.

According to Der
Spiegel, even members of

Chancellor Angela Merkel’s staff are now describing the policy as a massive

money pit. Philipp Rösler, Germany’s minister of economics and technology, has

called the spiraling solar subsidies a “threat to the economy.”

Germany’s enthusiasm
for solar power is understandable.

We could satisfy all of the world’s energy needs for an entire year if we could

capture just one hour of the sun’s energy. Even with the inefficiency of

current PV technology, we could meet the entire globe’s energy demand with

solar panels by covering 250,000 square kilometers (155,342 square miles),

about 2.6 percent of the Sahara Desert.

Unfortunately,
Germany—like most of the world—is not as

sunny as the Sahara. And, while sunlight is free, panels and installation are

not. Solar power is at least four times more costly than energy produced by

fossil fuels. It also has the distinct disadvantage of not working at night,

when much electricity is consumed.

In the words of the
German Association of Physicists,

“solar energy cannot replace any additional power plants.” On short, overcast

winter days, Germany’s 1.1 million solar-power systems can generate no

electricity at all. The country is then forced to import considerable amounts

of electricity from nuclear power plants in France and the Czech Republic.

Indeed, despite the
massive investment, solar power

accounts for only about 0.3 percent of Germany’s total energy. This is one of

the key reasons why Germans now pay the second-highest price for electricity in

the developed world (exceeded only by Denmark, which aims to be the “world

wind-energy champion”). Germans pay three times more than their American

counterparts.

Moreover, this
sizeable investment does remarkably little

to counter global warming. Even with unrealistically generous assumptions, the

unimpressive net effect is that solar power reduces Germany’s CO₂
emissions

by roughly 8 million metric tons—or about 1 percent – for the next 20 years. To

put it another way: By the end of the century, Germany’s $130 billion solar

panel subsidies will have postponed temperature increases by 23 hours.

Using solar, Germany
is paying about $1,000 per ton of CO₂ reduced.

The current CO₂ price in Europe is $8. Germany could have cut 131
times

as much CO₂ for the same price. Instead, the Germans are wasting more than 99 cents of every

euro that they plow into solar panels.

It gets
worse: Because Germany is part of the European

solar panels have only made it cheaper for Portugal or Greece to use coal.

Defenders of Germany’s
solar subsidies also claim that

they have helped to create “green jobs.” But
each job created by green-energy

policies costs an average of $175,000—considerably
more than job creation

elsewhere in the economy, such as infrastructure or health care. And many

“green jobs” are being exported to China, meaning that Europeans subsidize

Chinese jobs, with no CO₂ reductions.

Germany’s
experiment with subsidizing inefficient solar

technology has failed. What
governments should do instead is to focus first on

increasing research and development to make green-energy technology cheaper and

more competitive. Production should be ramped up later.

In the meantime,
Germans have paid about $130 billion for

a climate-change policy that has no impact on global warming. They have

subsidized Chinese jobs and other European countries’ reliance on dirty energy

sources. And they have needlessly burdened their economy. As even many German

officials would probably attest, governments elsewhere cannot afford to repeat

the same mistake.

This
article comes from Project Syndicate

Cost to operate a Chevy Volt

Eric Bolling (Fox Business Channel's "Follow the Money")
test drove the Chevy Volt at the invitation of General Motors.

For four days in a row, the fully charged battery lasted only 25
miles before the Volt switched to the reserve gasoline engine.

Eric calculated the car got 30 mpg including the 25 miles it ran
on the battery. So, the range including the 9 gallon gas tank and the 16
kwh battery is approximately 270 miles. It will take you 4 1/2 hours to
drive 270 miles at 60 mph. Then add 10 hours to charge the battery and
you have a total trip time of 14.5 hours. In a typical road trip your
average speed (including charging time) would be 20 mph.

According to General Motors, the Volt battery holds 16 kwh of
electricity. It takes a full 10 hours to charge a drained battery.
The cost for the electricity to charge the Volt is never mentioned so I looked
up what I pay for electricity.

I pay approximately (it varies with amount used and the seasons)
$1.16 per kwh. 16 kwh x $1.16 per kwh = $18.56 to charge the
battery. $18.56 per charge divided by 25 miles = $0.74 per mile to operate
the Volt using the battery.

Compare this to a similar size car equipped with only a 4 cylinder
gasoline engine that gets 32 mpg. $3.49 per gallon divided by 32 mpg =
$0.11 per mile.

The gasoline powered car cost about $15,000 while the Volt costs $46,000.

So Obama wants us to pay 3 times as much for a car that costs more
that 7 times as much to run and takes 3 times as long to drive across country.

REALLY?
No wonder GM is having trouble selling the Volt !

Going green is inevitable and rejecting it makes as much sense as people complaining about cars scaring the horses years ago. America needs to get on board with the rest of the world or we will lose out on another industry.

Obama is right, Americans need to stop subsidizing "Oil" profits. Stop the subsidies and to get gasoline prices where they should be the government should compete, that will drive the oil executives into zero profit and when they close their doors Americans will buy gasoline for 35% less than it is now. Look at PEMEX!

Please Dick, do not use PEMEX as an example. Mexico gas price is lower than that in the US mainly due to the fact that a lot of Mexican Oil is sold to other countries at the world market price and much of the profit is used to SUBSIDIZE the in Mexico price of gasoline. Along with various other commodities. It is the Mexican politicians way of keeping the masses happy and staying in office.

Also is the U.S. politicians would be truthful, people would realize that what they refer to as subsidies does not involve money collected from taxpayers to be sent to the oil industry. It is actually from where the politicians have at one time or another legislated a tax on the oil industry, then turned arround and reduced that tax or fee. The Politicians then occassionally refer to that reduction of taxes or fees as a subsidy when they want the public to think they want to be hard on the industry.

JH, if we are always going to need oil then what will happen when the world's oil supply runs out? Instead of kicking the can down the road saying crap like "oh we will not be around long enough to see it so let the future generations deal with it" we should be proactively preparing the nation for the inevitable end of oil. This means serious research into sustainable renewable energy. Solar is the most likely renewable energy of the future because Sol is not going to go away anytime soon and is a reliable source of energy.

Wind is not because it is tied to weather patters, hydro electricity is not a renewable source of energy because water levels will continue to lower, estimates say that in the next 25 to 30 years Hoover dam will have to be closed down because lake Mead will be too low to produce power.

However if we could find a way to either improve the conversion processes of solar cells to produce more power per cell and then, or, find a way to transmit energy through the air, maybe using infrared beams or something, we could then create satellites with no other purpose then to directly convert light from the sun into energy without having to worry about cloud cover.

There is also a fictional, yet plausible, object called a Dyson sphere. If we could build one of those we could harvest 100% of the solar output from the sun. This would be several hundred years into the future though as such a feat would require orbital construction sites.

Either way you look at it oil will not be around forever so why not actually proactively plan for that eventuality instead of pushing it off like we do with everything else.

One day we will run out of oil. Theres no reason to help oil companies keep us in this energy trap. If you think taking subsidies away from oil companies , who raise prices when people "think" prices will go up but DO NOT lower prices when people "think" prices should go down, is somehow a bad idea then you must be delusional.

Quietly, our government ended the tax credits designed to spur the wind farm industry. That is our "green" administration, but it is loudly proclaiming that it must end fossil fuel subsidies. How dedicated to green energy are they if the very industries that we are supposed to look to in the future are quietly being cut off as they just begin to show some viability?

As long as mankind has existed, there have been those who have held apocolyptic views of the world, guessing how and where it will all end, predicting chaos etc. And in a completely natural world (we won't go into anything relating to a Superior Being or God), this is true-nothing is permanent. The geological records show the huge shifts in climate, temperature, rainfall, and even the land masses themselves over the passage of time. Huge events that had nothing to do with mankind or pollution or abuse of resources, and would be completely unstoppable, even with technology today. Eruptions of Pompeii, Vesuvius, Krakatoa-all spewed more contaminants into the air than the modern, mechanized era, yet humanity and history continued. We are seeing seemingly strange weather and climate conditions, but not so strange as to not have happened in the history of our planet. We can spend all our energy trying to stop forces that are simply not going to stop, or we can spend our time and devote research to finding out how to cope with the changes that are coming, how to live with the new nature rather than fight it. The radical environmentalists will even contend that farm animals contribute to global warming by expelling methane gas....I don't suppose that our livestock is producing any greater degree of methane than the massive dinosaurs of previous eras, and the world did not shrivel up and die, but rather it changed and everything in it had to adapt. Other sources of energy is a wonderful concept, but it is not something that happens overnight, and it cannot come at the expense of people going about the general business of living in the world as it is now. Innovations come from people, in a free economy, looking to fill a need efficiently, and yes, at a profit, but not by bashing people over the head, calling them names, accusing them of not caring about the world....Come on, you get more flies with honey than vinegar. I, for one, have had enough vinegar shovelled at me to last a lifetime. Funny thing about constantly berating people, impuning their motives, making them out to be the "bad guys" as it seems to result in a self fulfilling prophecy where they live up to the negative traits that you ascribe to them. There is not incentive to do anything else.

Gas prices are skyrocketing, and no one looks past TODAY. The greedy, me, me, me attitude will be the destruction of this country!

No I believe that will be the spend, spend, spend of the Democrats that will take care of it first.

Geez Jo-An - How do you get to 7-11 to buy your smokes, Skittles and beef jerky? I'm almost 100% positive you don't walk. If you have a car that actually uses oil and gas you are a mighty hypocrite. If you want to go green go ahead and buy a Volt or some other crap electric car.

Ahhhhh....I drive a Volt AND a Schwinn...don't smoke or eat jerky,

AND I am aware of the "footprint" left by ALL the things I do enjoy!!

I recycle, and try to be as environmentally self aware as I can...I'm NOT perfect BUT at least I put an effort out there!!

Jo-An, thanks for your effort. I do try also, however, not always successful. My grandkids do a better job than I do. The four of them, all 19 and older, do not drive (too expensive), they ride the bus everywhere they want to go or they walk. We are lucky in Metro Denver you can get almost anywhere on the bus and the waits are not that bad. They learned to do their shopping, movies and jobs on the bus line. They may have to walk a few blocks to their jobs, but they do it. Yes, they go to the mountains usually with friends and share expenses. Life is hard but the young show just how easy it can be.

Perhaps you should read Post #3.6 Joanne to get a real Idea of the Democrats Devotion to protecting endangered species and sensitive lands. Reid is after all Senate Majority leader and was elected by the majority of his peers to lead them.

@slightlyold,

I know people have been "talking" about going green, I just mean, people aren't putting forth much effort. And, then of course you have the "I don't believe in Science" crowd, that think "climate change" is a hoax...

This shouldn't be a "den vs rep" issue, it should be an American issue!

@slightyold,

I meant to ALSO say, good for at least trying, and encouraging your grandkids! Keep it up, every little thing helps!

:)

ModeratelyIndy

Ahhhhhh, come on!!

Valdez? Yep, sea life and some birds got pretty messed up for a short time but destroying the earth? How ignorant is that? How about the gulf two years ago? Can you say evaporation? No doubt there was a spill, no doubt it got cleaned up and no doubt there was a ton of hype about how the region wouldn't recover for a hundred years. It's the same as it was before the oil well disaster! All Bull s$%* environmental alarmist talk. You want me to pay outrageous amounts of money for something that we have an abundance of simply because you THINK that we're destroying the precious earth. I find that threatening to the likes of you sticking your hand in my pocket.

You need to unplug from the matrix my friend, the earth is fine and dandy. When people are caught intentionally dumping toxins into our streams and water ways then eliminate the bastards, I'm cool with that. But don't stand on your stump and try to convince people that the earth needs a big hug from America that could essentially put us in the poor house when there is no scientific evidence of honest to God man-made global warming.

For any data you put up, I can produce data that will debunk it. It's made up data and that's been proven multiple times. I think you should find a better cause like protesting erupting volcano's, I'm sure we're to blame for that too.

Rightwingwac,

You are SOOooo in denial. Here is the truth, though I am certain you will deny this evidence as well.

The Great Carbon Bubble

World's oceans in peril

Moderate: The point is that private investors and private industry need to invest in viable alternative energy projects; both the risk and reward are theirs to take. The federal government has no business lending or giving grant money to promote schemes like Solyndra, or General Motors for that matter.

But but but.... wind and solar aren't viable!!! That's why California, one of the nation's largest states gets 20%+ of it's energy from renewables...

http://www.energy.ca.gov/renewables/

Keep your heads in the sand ostriches.

California steals its energy from other states. Neveda and other states have to sell energy to California for a discount, mandatory by federal government after the rolling black outs. California will not produce enough energy for their own consumpition, tree hugers won't allow them. What a double standard.

Singbiker

They told everyone 15 years ago that if something wasn't done in 10 years time the planets temperatures would rise to a point of no return and we'd surely meet our doom. The scientists cored ice to 10,000 years ago and found the co2 count at a miniscule and non-effective difference than it is today. Is that becuase the cave men were crusin' in their Hummers? They told us the entire computer grid was shutting down on 2000 but nothing, they're saying the end of times are the end of 2012 but that will be nothing too.

You're link didn't show but again, anything you put up here I can debunk with "factual" data as well. So who do you believe, those who stand to make billions out of something that clearly wont change the environment because most of the world wouldn't participate even if it did. Or people who are slightly skeptical about what "they" continual tell us?

Denial? Yep. Doesn't mean I'm not pro-earth, but it means that I'm not getting in the sheep line when all I have to do is dig and discover truths myself that are much more logical in argument. The US can stop all burning of all fossil fuels tomorrow and it won't change anything about our climate. It's as simple as solar activity and you are probably rolling your eyes but prove me wrong. Funny enough, the biggest solar flare recorded went off a couple of months ago and we've had one of the warmest winters....hmm. Anyway, I'm not going to convince you and you're not going to convince me but check in with me in a few years and we'll compare notes on how our co2's have caused tsunami's and earthquakes, forest fires, and Tornado's. You should talk this stuff out, it really sounds ridiculous when you start saying it out loud.

Hey Dangerous;

No one is saying it isn't viable. You're example however is a near bankrupt state that rapes it's citizens (the legal ones) as much as any. Of course it's possible...just like flying cars, daily space travel and holographic movies. BUT IT'S A PROGRESSION! The government has no business forcing it on us because there is no reason to advance it at lightning speed. Our technology isn't perfected in these areas and although you boast and brag about this 20% crap. The reality is that California is receiving billions in subsidies to build and maintain these forms of energy producers.

Dollar for dollar (right now) it's millions to one to build this stuff and make it work to an actual useful level. You bring up Solyndra but there are multiple companies that went out on our dime. The government needs to get the F$%& out of the way and let private sector determine when those technologies need to come in full force. You can cry like the diapered liberals usually do about us "right wing idiots" but the truth is the truth. Some government is needed and is good, the government that your party seems to push for is anti-American at best. JFK is turning in his grave.

By the way, let's put it to a test. I challenge every liberal on this post to choke down their pride and criticize your messiah on anything. And I mean something that would be good for the country not some hard Marxist b.s. Let's see if any of his sheep can actually stomach it. Oh yeah, I don't give a rats ass about the money you're crying about. But just watch what it will do at the pump whether you believe it or not. I want the money in my pocket not baracks. It would be fine if your messiah took those billions and actually did something good with them. Believe me he won't. The money will be funneled into some other wasted government program. Do you think he's actually going to give it to us? He is the great spender and the great divider and if you believe in him you'll believe anything...hey, I think I just figured something out.

What do you think China or Russia will do when we have vast amounts of oil reserves and the world has none. Who will own it? Do you think it will anyway bennifit us. When the world is will to pay through the ear do you think we will get it for cheap if any at all. No. If China doesn't own it already I'm sure it won't let us keep it to ourselves.

JeffDavis-1942240 You raise a very valid point.....and as our present administration fully believes that all we have to do is talk nice/nice with two bit political dicatators, and all the world's problems will go away, and we will all sing Kum Bay Ah together in perfect harmony........a government that is going to demonstrate financial restraint by dismantling our military, so that the two bit dictators have no reason to listen to us at all ("you and whose army?") when we tell them what is fair in the world. When the 9/11 attacks will seem like a day in the park compared to the meglomaniacs who think that American cannot and will not defend itself......It is a very real concern. I suggest that you start learning Mandarin now.

Ughhh, Sue, our military is the most well-equipped in the world. We spend over a half-trillion on defense every year, more than most of the world combined. I think that some budget cuts won't damage the military that much. That, and pray tell who are the two bit dictators?? If their in Chin and Russia, that is all we can do. They are HUGE. And the reason why Obama is talking is because he doesn't want to repeat Bush's mistake; and since when is diplomacy bad???? America has done worse. Negotiating shows practicality. And if China rises, its gonna be because Bush drove up our debt substantially, crippling us for decades to come. That means a lot more belt-tightening. That means everything has to be considered (EXCEPT INVESTMENTS IN EDUCATION AND INNOVATION). That includes defense and tax increases. If the GOP will be willing to raise taxes and revenues, maybe we can get a deal, get our economy rolling, and make the necessary investments to beef up our military. But until the Grand Obstructionist Party compromises, we'll be in this rut. Hopefully the American people will come to their senses, send these conservative idiots to the curb and give vote in people who will show some REAL leadership (Democrats, Obama, moderate Republicans). Until then, may God have mercy on us all.

Oh and I'd have a negotiating diplomat of a president than an ineffective and incompetent war commander that we had last time.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

DEATH TO THE GRAND OBSTRUCTIONIST PARTY 2012

DEMOCRATIC HOUSE AND SENATE 2012

Richard,

Sounds like this was a good thing for the Egyptian people. Why should this be a bad thing for you?

Shouts of “God is great” erupted from Tahrir Square at twilight as Mr. Mubarak’s vice president and longtime intelligence chief, Omar Suleiman, announced that Mr. Mubarak had passed all authority to a council of military leaders.

Tens of thousands who had bowed down for evening prayers leapt to their feet, bouncing and dancing in joy. “Lift your head high, you’re an Egyptian,” they cried.

SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/12/world/middleeast/12egypt.html?pagewanted=all

As for the Americans going on trial, that story is already over!

http://www.tampabay.com/incoming/egypt-lifts-travel-ban-on-us-pro-democracy-workers/1217846

Where'd you hear that little gem of an unfounded conspiracy from? Glenn Beck? What does Obama have to do with who they elect or who they kick out? Besides voicing that it was a good thing the dictator was being ousted?

Good buy Houston.

Hello Dubai.

The 2010 election results were due to the people wanting JOBS to be the main focus. Notice Congresses single digit approval ratings since then. The GOP has consistently been pushing social issues, anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, instead of jobs. I for one believe that the GOP are going to lose some seats in the house for sure and possibly the senate come election time.

$4 Billion for all of the oil and gas companies combined.... Yet Obama gave GM $14 BILLION in tax breaks alone, on top of the bailout money.

Guess it's OK as long as it is being used to buy union votes.

GM's sweetheart tax deal

"The U.S. Treasury is giving up $14 billion in tax revenue because of a sweetheart deal it's giving General Motors.

"Since the company shed $30 billion in debt during bankruptcy, it should have wiped out most of the tax break...But somehow, that never happened, and the automaker was able to keep most of its tax breaks, essentially receiving a $14 billion "gift" from the government.

While it's unclear why GM was allowed to carry over its losses, some experts insist that GM got preferential treatment...the tax break was just another example of how GM's bankruptcy process was unlike any previous bankruptcies.

One reason the government might have let General Motors claim the loss, was to reduce the perceived cost of the bailout, said Linus Wilson, finance professor at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette.

Also, the fact that GM kept the tax breaks made its stock more attractive at the time of its initial public offering last November, Wilson said."

http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/23/news/companies/gm_bailout/index.htm

Pjamo9--SHHHH. that article on what the GM bailout cost us (and is STILL costing us!) was from MSN!

You know, that 'right wing pub publication.'

And did anyone notice that PART of the downfall of GM was concentrating on the big gas guzzlers at a time when most could not afford to buy them, let alone RUN them.

Well, last week, as a sign that GM is all hunky dory now, a factory in Detroit just started its third shift back up for the first time in a long while. Guess what they MAKE? PICK UPs.

So much for GM learning a lesson, AND for the 'greening of America.'

I guess you want to bring back Bush too..... Democrats are our only hope. GO Obama !!!

GO ROMNEY!

maybe thats why the govt mandated fleet avg of 50 mpg in what 2026 or whatever year it is should not be viewed as socialist intrusion of the govt into private enterprise but is done for a purpose-THE GREATER GOOD. Just as a good manager will move the direction of a company into a direction of future growth so do does a good government.

Joseph - You might want to adjust your glasses to be able to see beyond the last two years. You see, and this is not disputed by actual economists only political talking heads, the recession we are in is a result of policies promulgated by the Bush administration.

If you go back and look at news headlines, even you can plainly see that this was all going down at the end of Bush's time. Much of our President's intended agenda (as stated during his campaign) has had to be put aside in order to deal with the very real and very complex problem of turning our economy around.

And let's not forget that the USA does not live in a vacuum - what happened here is still trickling around the globe. I suspect you won't give it a second thought or bother to do any research on which to base your opinion, but imagine if the stated policies from the GOP candidates had actually been implemented when the awful scope of this recession was first being understood. Republicans like Romney would have done the polar opposite of what the financial system studied and learned decades ago as a result of the Great Depression.

I wish there was a magic bullet to shoot at this recession, but unfortunately it took years of lax Republican policies, and the wasting of trillions and trillions of dollars on a grudge war with Iraq (not to mention the thousands of lives given in service to our country) to put us in the hole. It takes time – maybe 3-5 years – for something as slow moving as a nation's economy to change course. You simply cannot expect an aircraft carrier to turn on a dime like a ski boat.

Prosperity comes in many forms. It is this one person's humble opinion that the President, with his continued push for alternative energy, is trying not to take this country green (which would be a side effect) but to encourage us to be the country that discovers/develops the technologies that the world will buy as the alternate fuels market emerges. Kennedy had the space race. Today, we have the race to invent the technology that takes the world forward. We can either be dependent on yet another foreign country for whatever the next kind of energy is and be no better off than we are now, or WE can be the country everyone else is dependent on.

So, Joseph, which do you choose? To stay the course keeps us in the game – gives us a fighting chance for the future. To change to wishy-washy Romney is to give up the future and keep beating the dying horse we're already on.

Oh s--t!, It is all Bush's fault after over three four years of OBAMA'S INEPTITUDE.

Great experiments for the future that combined with hydroelectric make up 20%+ of California's energy needs (one of the largest states in the union).

Yeah... great ideas for the "future" which are being used effectively now. Of course, CA doesn't have to hang on the jock of Big Oil and defend billions in welfare to them like many red states.

Your "those technologies aren't viable now" talking point is false. Sorry. It will fall the way of all the other right wing lies given time. We're building more solar and wind plants in Cali as I speak, along with high speed rail. All the douchebag naysayers can't do a damn thing about it either. But cry and argue to stay in the stone age, Neanderthals. It's entertaining to watch you jump through hoops of false logic and denial.

Mc_callen--see, I HATED that Bush thought he could fight two wars, and NOT pass a tax increase to pay for it.

But Obama continued to fight two wars, and did NOT pass a tax increase to pay for it.

Bush had a hateful prisoner camp, which created resentment around the world.

Despite ABSOLUTLY promising to CLOSE Guantanemo, Obama has FAILED to do so. (a move I support, I might add!)

Bush increased our deficit spending with NO way to pay it back.

And despite RAILING against deficit spending, Obama has not only continued it but ACCELERATED it.

Mean while, when Bush took office, one of the first things he did was convene a 'panel' of energy experts (oil buddies) while denying the public/press ANY access to WHO they were or what decisions were made, and then passed energy policy that gave preference to (quelle surprise!) big oil.

Obama promised openness and transparency, so right after HE took office, he TOO convened a panel of energy experts (COAL buddies from HIS home state,) while denying the public/press ANY access to who they were and what decisions were made, and then passed energy policy that gave preference to BIG COAL.

You see, I had a lot of hopes for Obama being the proverbial broom that 'sweeps clean', and instead, he has just changed the shenanigans around to the DEM side. That is NOT ok with me.

He bargained away women's rights to have a SAFE abortion (and remember, we are ONLY talking about POOR women--wealthier women can ALWAYS get a 'D & C' for cramps.) in order to placate anti abortionists in the DEM party and get an unpopular health 'care' bill thru.

And worst of ALL, he allows millions of black poor to be supplanted in the job market by ILLEGALS, when he PROMISED to stop illegals being able to work here. He stopped all work place raids, and his much vaunted 'increase' of deportations? Replaced Bush's policy of SENDING repeat offenders to JAIL, as a way to make it less attractive to come back.

Now we have a couple of hundred military/national guardsmen coming home over the next two years to NO jobs, and if the president wants to keep THEM from being on the unemployment line, I have a solution--put them, and other out of work AMERICAN construction workers to building a WALL on our southern border, and give them the technology to use cameras, drones, and other equipment to MAINTAIN it.

Aren't they all the same guy?

!Duuurrrr!!! Obama's a secret SOSHULIST muslim KENYAN. His birth certificate is FAKED! TERRORIST! Show us your college grades NOW!

Your tinfoil hat needs adjustment dude.

The GOP has created a plutocracy. Government by the wealthy, for the wealthy.

Vote Koch, Norquist and The DO NOTHING CONGRESS OUT!!!!

Yeah, the pipedream green energy that currently powers 20%+ of California's energy needs.

http://www.energy.ca.gov/renewables/

Such pie in the sky thinking... </sarcasm>

Because they only had a Democratic supermajority for only a few short weeks. There was only time to pass one item. The Affordable Care Act.

Every bill since then has been blocked and obstructed by a Republican do-nothing Congress. They promised 'jobs jobs jobs' in 2010 and have proposed nothing but abortion bills and blocked any effort on part of the Dems.

Your talking points are tired and only fool those ignorant about the political process.

you have no concept of time. Btw are you saying that at those few short weeks that the most important issue was health care. Its called out of touch. It explains:

Your talking points are tired and only fool those ignorant about the political process.

Dangerous: Whatever.... Let's see:

"Do nothing congress" check

"obstructed" check

"affordable care act" check (snicker snicker on that one)

Who is using talking points? You also might want to read my post before replying. Never mentioned supermajority--only that they had both houses. Seems like only half of your chosen name is true...

I leave it to you to decide which half. Have a great day.

We, the citizens, will wind up paying more if those subsidies are dropped. What are they for? To search and develop more sources, research and development of alternate energy sources...they have the expertise and scientists who are working on this. This is nothing more than election year claptrap by our President, who does not understand how the economy works...how many jobs will be lost if these are dropped?

I agree with the production points you make to be sure, but I think the Chargeers will get a new stadium LONG before that policy is ever enacted.

Dang. I meant chargers of course...

I don't know. Between the play of the Chargers lately and the demand that the city/county foot a significant part of the construction...you may never see the Chargers in a new San Diego stadium. Hopefully, someone in our government one day figure out it is detrimental to US consumers when oil that is found or refined here is shipped to another country.

He wants the price to go up. That is the plan he and Steven Chu (Secretary of Energy) have hatched to try and force us all into driving "green" cars, taking the bus and putting ineffective solar panels on our houses. No to mention the paybacks to his political supporters. Think Solyndra.

And if raising the price of something until it is ASTROMICALLY too expensive worked to stop people from doing it, we would be a smoke free America.

And Anheuser Busch, Miller and Coors would be not so healthy.

You should go take an economics class somewhere other than a home study college or Princeton. That is if you can read and comprehend material that any intelligent Rutabaga can master.

Of course the oil companies record profits are much more reasonable than a company like Apple or Microsoft. They have been ripping consumers off for decades.

To..bfitz"""

What...where am I wrong ..

It just more hypocritical campaign rhetoric.... B.O. knows people are pissed at oil companies.... so now he pretends to be pissed at oil companies. He must really think Americans are dumb as dirt, its understandable though considering the flock that bows to him.

$4 Billion for all of the oil and gas companies combined.... Yet Obama gave GM $14 BILLION in tax breaks alone, on top of the bailout money.

Guess it's OK as long as it is being used to buy union votes.

GM's sweetheart tax deal

"The U.S. Treasury is giving up $14 billion in tax revenue because of a sweetheart deal it's giving General Motors.

"Since the company shed $30 billion in debt during bankruptcy, it should have wiped out most of the tax break...But somehow, that never happened, and the automaker was able to keep most of its tax breaks, essentially receiving a $14 billion "gift" from the government.

While it's unclear why GM was allowed to carry over its losses, some experts insist that GM got preferential treatment...the tax break was just another example of how GM's bankruptcy process was unlike any previous bankruptcies.

One reason the government might have let General Motors claim the loss, was to reduce the perceived cost of the bailout, said Linus Wilson, finance professor at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette.

Also, the fact that GM kept the tax breaks made its stock more attractive at the time of its initial public offering last November, Wilson said."

http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/23/news/companies/gm_bailout/index.htm

Subsidies hold the price down...really...and you buy into this logic.

Amazing, the price of gas is down because the oil company's just collect the profit from the subsidies. they don't have to charge more because the government pays them.

The logic is reasonable - here is an industry making good profits while receiving healthy subsidies from a government that cannot afford to pass out subsidies. Sounds like it is also time to end the agricultural subsidies. Most of those go to huge corporations, and some of them go to landowners who are not even farming the previously registered land now (church parking lots and such.)

Especially the subsidies going to big TOBACCO!!!

I don't think Obama is out of line. The Billions that oil companies are make are suppose to go towards oil exploration, etc. The Republicans want the American people to give them a free ride. So lets look at this logically; the tax payer is to give oil companies millions in free money so the oil companies can make billions.

Now did I understand that right?

Put America First--I do not have any real problem with getting rid of all the subsidies. BUT (and this is a HUGE but--) ONLY if that money is used to pay down the deficit, NOT to increase the buying of votes (oops, I meant 'entitlement' giveaways).

Demand is down because of the economy, not Obama's policies. Production on state and private lands is up by 26% combined because Obama has no authority over the leases on those lands. On federal lands, where he does have authority, production is down 11% because of his moratoriums. Same for leases on off shore drilling.Obama's policies on oil and gas are hurting the economy.

Bella, thank you. You are the only one that has pointed that out all day. I haven't had time to get on and say as much. Some people will beleive anything they are told, rather than pay attention to what is really going on. I wondered what happened a few months ago when they were talking about speculators and the prices went down for a little while.

I live in Alaska and oil is being pumped out daily. That doesn't keep our price at the pump low. No, wh have the highest gas prices in the country. No one talks about that in the national media though. We have gas in some parts that are as high as $8.00 a gallon. Here in Anchorage it is over $5.99. Last few years South America has been donating oil to the villages because no one really make it an issue. It's sad the way the oil companies operate.

Polar bear--the reason you Alaskans have the highest gas prices is because you have NO refineries.

And you can thank the environmental Nazi's for THAT, too.