Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 15:51:06 -0500
Reply-To: Marc Perdue <marcperdue@ADELPHIA.NET>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Marc Perdue <marcperdue@ADELPHIA.NET>
Subject: Re: A message from White House Spokesperson Scott McLellan:
CAUTION POLITICAL CONTENT
In-Reply-To: <001801c5217f$9a4c9300$07020a0a@stjohn>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
I grant you that we were never promised cheap oil as a result of our
incursion into Iraq and its continued occupation.
As far as political parties whining when their candidates lose, they
both do the same thing. Remember when Clinton won and all of a sudden
everybody's sporting bumper stickers saying "Don't blame me. I voted for
Bush"? Waahh! Who cares? Neither party has offered up anything really
useful for making America the great place and great global citizen it
can and should be, with respect from the rest of our brethren throughout
the world.
Regarding the rest of your comments about energy, what a crock! During
the first Arab oil embargo in 1973, we were importing 6 million barrels
of oil a day. Over the course of the next 7 years, and through the next
Arab oil embargo in the late 70s, we reduced our energy consumption
through the development of more fuel efficient cars, incentives to
reduce energy consumption in the home through conservation,
weatherproofing, and newer, more efficient windows and energy consuming
appliances. Jimmy Carter developed and implemented a sane "National
Energy Plan" in 1977 that addressed national energy demand and supply
and proposed paths to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources.
He took a personal stance on the matter and had solar hot water panels
installed at the White House to reduce the cost of producing hot water.
It worked. We reduced our national energy consumption by, get this, *6
million barrels of oil per day*! Then Reagan got in the White House,
dismantled the solar water heaters and the National Energy Plan and
implemented supply-side economics. As an economics major, at the time,
I understood what that new economic policy meant; it meant that if I had
money already, I could get rich during Reagan's tenure as president.
Unfortunately, like most Americans, I didn't have "disposable income"
that I could use to take advantage of that policy. The other thing that
resulted from his economic initiatives and other policies was an
increase in energy demand. That did NOT happen under Clinton, but under
Reagan and G. H. W. Bush, who, BTW, is an oilman. Does that not strike
anybody here as a conflict of interest? I didn't complete a major in
Economics; I designed an Interdisciplinary Major in Solar Engineering
that combined the disciplines of Economics, Engineering, Physics, and
Architecture. I spent 7 or 8 years after college on my own studying
various aspects of energy use and production, both renewable and
non-renewable forms of energy. I helped build and ran an ethanol fuel
plant for several years. Am I taking shots at things I don't
understand? Not likely.
Marc Perdue
Brian Hughes wrote:
>Gnarlie spoketh:
>
>
>
>>We spent 160 billion dollars in Iraq and the price of gas went UP? That's
>>not what I was promised!
>>
>>
>
> Get over it. Your party lost the House, the Senate and the White House.
>You were never promised cheap oil or cheap energy. The rising use of
>foreign energy started un Clinton. Now, if the "let's all scream together"
>political party that is becoming ever more unhelpful (and unelectable in the
>US) suddenly came to their senses and allowed a sane energy policy to be
>enacted, we wouldn't be in this mess. But it's easier to take shots about
>things we don't understand. Such is the cost of ignorance.
>
>Mondosubmerso
>
>
>
|