no-policy policy of the Clinton Administration these last eight years.

[WriterDom]

HOW OTHERS SEE U.S.


Mark Steyn on the genius of Bush's energy policy.

Sunday, May 20, 2001 1:43 a.m. EDT

From "Bush Is Right to Put His Foot on the Gas," a column by Mark Steyn in London's Sunday Telegraph, May 20:

The environmentalist Left is opposed to oil exploration in the Arctic because it thinks we should give up our gas-guzzling Jeep Cherokees for rinky-dink electric cars. Okay. In that case, with all these electric cars, we'll need more electricity, so we should build some nuclear power plants. No, sorry, say the environmentalists, we can't risk another Three Mile Island. Okay. Well, how about coal-fired plants? No can do. Coal's too dirty. Greenhouse gas emissions. Okay. You guys are in favour of mass transit so let's go back to wood-fired steam trains. A bit cumbersome. No, sorry, say the environmentalists. We're opposed to logging. We want a ban on forestry work in environmentally sensitive areas such as forests.

This is the genius of the Bush approach. By being in favour of everything, he's brilliantly exposed the fact that the other side's in favour of nothing. No nukes. No wells. No refineries. No exploration. No nothing, no matter how safe, clean and efficient the energy industry gets. Thus, the no-policy policy of the Clinton Administration these last eight years.

 

[unusuallyconfused]

HOW OTHERS SEE U.S.
Okay. Thus, the no-policy policy of the Clinton Administration these last eight years.

I have heard that even California now that they are experiencing the rolling black outs are starting to "rethink" the issue and possibly explore nuclear energy. Has anyone heard if that is factual. I do like the way you think, Dom.

 

[Guru]

I've often thought about nuclear power plants. The main reason given for opposing them is that "we don't know how to dispose of the waste." Well, actually, we do know what to do with it. Embed it in ceramic, and entomb it.

What is done with the waste from a coal or oil-fired power generation plant? It is shot into the air.

 

[p_p_man]

It takes us Brits to point out the obvious...

HOW OTHERS SEE U.S.
Okay. Thus, the no-policy policy of the Clinton Administration these last eight years.

I have heard that even California now that they are experiencing the rolling black outs are starting to "rethink" the issue and possibly explore nuclear energy. Has anyone heard if that is factual. I do like the way you think, Dom.

Now why didn't anyone else come up with those points.

 

[Mischka]

If every car in the US was made one mile per gallon more fuel efficient, then we would save more oil than we can extract from Alaska. I support a combined fuel approach - oil, natural gas, electricity, wind, solar, whatever we can find. Eventually, we will run out of oil, so it makes sense to start looking for alternatives now to stretch that supply.

And I agree that Americans are not going to make drastic changes in their lifestyles in order to support environmentally-friendly programs. WD, instead of always quoting the extremists, why not look into moderate environmental programs? Mixed fuel - gas and electric - cars are far more reasonable for most Americans that either electric or gas guzzling Suburbans. Again, everything in moderation.

 

[Comshaw]

by Mischka:

If every car in the US was made one mile per gallon more fuel efficient, then we would save more oil than we can extract from Alaska. I support a combined fuel approach - oil, natural gas, electricity, wind, solar, whatever we can find. Eventually, we will run out of oil, so it makes sense
to start looking for alternatives now to stretch that supply.

You really want to save gas? My heavy ass Yamaha Venture gets about 40 miles to the gallon, a nice cruiser in the 500 to 800cc class gets 50 mpg or more. Get out of those damned cars. Look cool, be cool, save fuel, ride a motorcycle!

Comshaw