Posted by
Brenda Bee on Thursday, July 17, 2008 6:39:55 AM
Here is an interesting article from
FactCheck.org that hits at both presidential candidates and their
quick fix for the energy crisis. There is no "quick fix" for the
mess we have gotten ourselves into by living like we were not aware
that fossil fuels were a finite resource. Of course as long as the
United States was the only profligate user we could continue in our
greedy ways. Like who knew India and China both with larger
populations than the United States would ever wake up from their long
sleep stuck in the pre-oil days and suddenly demand their share of this
resource?
Thinking about this is rather ironic is it not?
That we would be caught up in our own greedy consumption and now be
crying like the spoiled brats we are because we are suddenly having to
pay the actual price of oil as the rest of the world have always done.
Still at $4 a gallon we in the US are still being pampered since the
costs in Europe is now up to $8 a gallon.
And after reading
the fallowing that exposes the clay feet of Obama's fix it be sure to
go to the bottom of the age and click on the article entitled "McCain's
Power Outage". BB
_________________________________
From FactCheck.org
Straining a Point
Summary
Obama
released a national ad saying he has "fast-track alternatives" to
imported oil. On closer examination, those turn out to be his proposal
to spend $150 billion over the coming decade on energy research. Ten
years doesn't sound all that "fast" to us, and there's no guarantee
that the research will result in less oil being imported.
Analysis
Sen.
Barack Obama's campaign released the ad and said it would run on
national cable TV networks starting July 17. According to the news release,
the 30-second spot "underscores Barack Obama’s understanding of
national security in a new century." Perhaps so. Much of what it says
is accurate enough, but on one point we find that it strains the truth
and could easily give viewers a false impression.
Obama 08 Ad:
Changing World
Announcer: 40 years ago it was missile silos and the Cold War.
Today, it’s cyber attacks…loose nukes…oil money funding terrorism.
Barack Obama understands our changing world.
On the Foreign Relations Committee, he co-sponsored a law to lock down loose nuclear weapons.
As president, he’ll rebuild our alliances to take out terrorist
networks... And fast-track alternatives so we stop spending billions on
oil from hostile nations.
New leadership for a changing world.
Obama: I’m Barack Obama and I approve this message.
Fast Track
As an example of Obama's supposed grasp of 21st-century security
threats, the ad says he has "fast-track alternatives so we stop
spending billions on oil from hostile nations." Pictured on screen are
images of whirling windmills generating electricity, a solar array
against a blue sky, and a couple of white-coated lab workers, one of
them peering into a microscope.
The campaign says
the ad is referring to Obama's long-standing proposal to spend $150
billion over 10 years for research into alternative energy – "to
advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure,
accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote
development of commercial-scale renewable energy, invest in
low-emissions coal plants, and begin the transition to a new digital
electricity grid."
Spending that money may well be a good
idea, but it's not our place to judge. We do object to describing a
decade-long program, which in all probability could not even begin
until sometime in late 2009, as a "fast track" to anything.
We also point out that even over the long term there can be no
guarantee that just spending more for research will produce the sort of
new fuels, vehicles or other breakthroughs that would actually reverse
the growth of oil imports. Keep in mind that the U.S. imported the equivalent of 13.4 million barrels of oil per day last year,
up nearly 17 percent from just five years earlier and 32 percent higher
than in 1997. This is a huge problem that has been getting worse for a
long time. Reversing it will not be "fast" or painless.
We repeat: We're not knocking Obama's 10-year plan. We cited it in our July 9 article
as the reason that a Republican National Committee ad was wrong to say
that Obama has "no new solutions" to the energy problem. We're not
endorsing Obama's plan either. We are saying Obama is stretching the
truth to call this decade-long program a "fast-track" alternative or to
say that "we [will] stop spending billions on oil from hostile nations"
as a result.
by Brooks Jackson
Sources
Related Articles