Posted on 11/06/2007 5:56:23 AM PST by milwguy
All of the leading Democratic contenders for the presidency are committed to a set of cuts in greenhouse gas emissions that would change the way Americans light their homes, fuel their automobiles and do their jobs, costing billions of dollars in the short term but potentially, the candidates say, saving even more in the decades to follow.
Former senator John Edwards (N.C.), who from the outset has made global warming one of the three pillars of his campaign, explains his ambitious plan to Democratic primary voters in terms of sacrifice.
In a speech yesterday in Iowa, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) said she plans to address climate change and the nation's energy needs by launching an effort to require U.S. vehicles to average 55 miles per gallon by 2030 and providing $20 billion in "Green Vehicle Bonds" to help the auto industry transform to production of more efficient cars. Clinton estimated that by 2030, her plan would cut foreign oil imports by two-thirds compared with current projections.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
....but blowing in the political winds is their specialty.
Wouldn't a demand of 155 mpg be even better?
I’m holding out for a full 200 miles to the gallon.
More Gorebasms
If you elect me, I'll pass a law requiring 200 light years per gallon. Now try to beat THAT!
And every child with an advanced degree.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
“Climate” may be a risky issue for Democrats, but merely talking about committing to a vague set of goals to potentially cut “greenhouse gas” emissions is quite safe for Hillary and the Hillary-ettes, hayna?
The dems have all the answers:
Mandate 200mpg for cars.
Mandate solar power for homes.
Mandate caps on personal energy consumption.
Mandate $50/hr minimum wage.
Mandate everyone have government health care.
Mandate ....
Do you detect a theme here? Oh, yeah, that would be the dems running your life, and not for the better. Welcome to Amerika.
I see a lot of similarities between the climate talk and the illegal immigration talk. I do not believe most Americans want our country invaded by illegals, nor do I believe that most Americans would cripple our economy to bow to the Goracle and his Global Warming alarmists. If told that the rest of the world (china, india, etc) will continue to pollute the enviroment at will, will never cut their CO2 emissions, and will laugh all the way to the bank as our country goes down the tubes. A rational energy plan, which would slowly raise fuel efficiency standards, promote solar and wind and geothermal, and would TAP OUR OWN VAST RESERVES of oil and natural gas in ANWR, the Gulf Coast and all the places we know it exists would be a winner............If we told the American people that we will have a Marshall Plan to reduce our reliance on Islamofascist Oil by building nuclear plants, tapping OUR OWN VAST OFFSHORE RESERVES, and tax new domestic oil at $20 a barrel to pay for research on alternative energy, people would line up in mass behind the plan. This issue could be a huge winner for the Republican with the balls and foresight to read what the American people are really thinking, not what the elites tell them they SHOULD be thinking.
Anyone who really thinks the Washington Post wants a Hillary presidency needs to consider just why the WP has been publishing negative articles about her.
AGW™ ping
A Republican candidate could easily win the general election by contrasting the energy policy of the two parties.
Under the energy policies of the Rats the prices of gas, electricity and oil have gone up, and will continue to go up.
The Pub candidate should promise to cut the price of gas, electricity and oil in half. Build 100 nuclear power plants in 10 years, allow clean oil drilling anywhere in the US, including offshore, and issues permits for new refineries to double output. A great case can be made for all of these initiatives to help create a cleaner environment, but most importantly for the pocketbook voter, it will decrease costs for them. And, of course, this will benefit the poor, women, children and minorities the most...
Good article here.
Yup! And enriching the traders that designed the scheme.
Thanks for the ping. It looks like all the Democrats are on board, as well as McCain, Huckabee, and Gingrich. Thompson and Giuliani are riding the fence but buying into the manmade nonsense--they just want a slower global solution (i.e. cap and trade?). From what I've read, Romney is also a fence sitter but indicates he'd support a cap and trade program if there was a global cap. Voters aren't given a lot of choices there.
I hadn't read the original article, but I did like this follow-up. I'd like to see Greenspan yelling from the rooftops.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.