.
(please scroll down for update)
.
A nice little shot across the bow that has been getting fairly heavy rotation on CBS during NCAA tournament games.
.
Here's another clean, articulate, good-looking African-American back in 2008 making the case for why you should be paying for more at the pump:
.
.
0:35 - "Nothing's for free." Except for condoms and the pill.
1:43 - Energy efficiency means... changing our light bulbs?
2:15 - Subsidizing an individual filling up their Suburban is indeed a bad idea. Just as bad of an idea as subsidizing student loans, other people's sex lives and most relevantly, tens of billions of dollars to subsidize the not-yet-ready-for-market green technology of your cronies.
We're paying higher prices at the pump, alright - making those sacrifices, however, is not bringing us any closer to true energy independence.
* For those of you that had forgot.
.
(UPDATE #1): We felt B-Daddy's feedback was worth liberating from the comment section:
This is the most anti-science administration ever. They think that their secular religion trumps the technology of energy production, to whit, that they can declare that there are energy sources of greater power density than liquid hydrocarbons on a mass and volume basis. There are not, and no amount of declaring otherwise will make it so. If they were honest, they would encourage the production of natural gas, because its carbon footprint per btu and mass is less than other sources of energy. That they do not is further evidence of their hypocrisy.
He's exactly right. If you are talking total cradle-to-grave carbon footprint with respect to energy output, oil is the greenest thing going. To use the terminology of Obama's predecessor, we need to ween ourselves off our addiction to green technology... well, at least the political class needs to ween itself off its addiction to pouring billions and billions of tax-payer dollars into green energy schemes that can't pay for themselves. Time to take off the training wheels!
.
2 comments:
This is the most anti-science administration ever. They think that their secular religion trumps the technology of energy production, to whit, that they can declare that there are energy sources of greater power density than liquid hydrocarbons on a mass and volume basis. There are not, and no amount of declaring otherwise will make it so. If they were honest, they would encourage the production of natural gas, because its carbon footprint per btu and mass is less than other sources of energy. That they do not is further evidence of their hypocrisy.
What is oil? Sunlight stored in liquid form through natural processes. It is stable, transportable and storable. We have liquid energy and it isn't good enough?
Post a Comment