Interesting thoughts you have on cap and trade. I think cap and trade is poor energy policy and will create higher energy costs to consumers which will then reduce discretionary spending and create yet another head wind for our weak economy. Cap and trade is really just an energy tax designed to make hydrocarbons less competitive with green alternatives. Nuclear is safe, clean, and cost effective. Same for NG for transportation. I am personaly not sold on the idea of man-made global warming. BTW...It is highly unlikely I will be voting for Obama in 2012. Good luck.
Your logic is wrong, how could i expect you to be rationale in your politics. Have any idea how many lbs of carbon dioxide the average consumer in ohio will create in the average winter's natural gas use? Do you know? No you don't. Or you wouldn't equate Nuclear power 0 carbon emission's. Average Ohio resident will create 115 lbs of carbon dioxide with the use of natural gas. Please save your insanity.
<<Average Ohio resident will create 115 lbs of carbon dioxide with the use of natural gas. Please save your insanity. >>
isn't carbon dioxide good for plants and trees? if we make a lot more of it that would be a good thing to promote plant an dtree growth right!!??.
there is NO SUCH THING as man influenced climate change. The climate has NEVER been constant and never will be. Ice and glaciers have ebbed and flowed for millions of years all due to dinosaurs driving SUV's and inventing the internet.
Do you know that underground coal and peat fires in Indonesia and China create more co2 emissions annually than the emissions of all U.S. automobiles and trucks?
Interestingly, we have the technology to extinguish these fires.
Also we are sitting on a very clean 200+ year of NG supply and a lot of untapped oil, so the political rhetoric of weaning ourselves from mid-east oil, without mentioning our own capacity is just strange. I have never heard Obama use the words "natural gas," have you?
So all this talk about wind and electric cars is just a bunch of hooey, in reality. imho.
There is a reasonable concern about proliferation.
The thorium cycle makes sense from that standpoint as well. That is one very possibility that will be talked about a lot in the future. Of course thorium is not currently being used and only India, I believe, is proceeding with plans to build prototypes.
This too should be included in the energy bill. For once I am with the republicans, as long as they don't use the bad science canard.
The point is that neither Obama nor Nader can decide that solar panels are the future and we need to depend on solar for our energy needs. On the plus side Obama is not directly opposing other energy sources the way Nader does.