Lots of discussion about cars and global warming
Both sides are valid, of course.
Mark says global warming, now known as climate change, because, well, things are not warming, says that it is a bunch of bull.
Rich says, no we must be concerned because it might someday be a problem (yes, he admits, they have predicted 10 of the last zero's apocalypse), and we use too much gas and oil.
Of course this is supported by the folks who pretty much want global income redistribution.
3 comments:
What positive, affirmative approach will the Republicans take? Or, is it just say no - more head in the sand BS?
Rich, they have come up with alternatives it is just that all of the left wing sources that you view for all of your information do not mention it but instead try to make the Republicans the problem. The Republicans do have a budget alternative that of course has been pushed to the rear in the effort to please the Obammessiah.
On energy independence Republicans have argued for increased domestic exploration that has been continually blocked by the Dems. More Nuclear Energy Plants like Obama's new found friends in Europe. Again blocked by Dems.
Therefore the answer to your second question is No it is not and never has been.
I haven't seen GOP budget numbers - no one has.
We use 25% of the world's energy and we have 3% of the world's reserves. So, you look to our domestic reserves to solve the problem?!
Nuclear power frustrates our all-important non-proliferation activities, it creates terrorist targets and we cannot effectively plan for 6,000 years of waste storage. I say no to nuclear and yes to all renewables and market/tax induced conservation.
Post a Comment