More Global Warming Profiteering by Obama Energy Official

#2
#2
Government legislation is bad for this science, and whatever proof they have for or against climate change as a whole.
 
#3
#3
When you start with "Government legislation is bad", then you can put pretty much anything afterward and be on the money. :)
 
#5
#5
She should be sent packing...

And I agree, this is too much government involvement.
 
#6
#6
so the Bush admin was in bed with big oil and this new admin is in bed with big green? Man I'm so glad I can tell the difference between the parties
 
#7
#7
utvolpj said:
so the Bush admin was in bed with big oil and this new admin is in bed with big green? Man I'm so glad I can tell the difference between the parties
Click to expand...

The lines between those two entities is becoming blurred at times, too (big oil and big green, I mean)
 
#8
#8
One more example of how this administration is doing all the things it attacked the previous administration for.
 
#9
#9
IPorange said:
The lines between those two entities is becoming blurred at times, too (big oil and big green, I mean)
Click to expand...

you can only demonize someone for so long before they get the hint and try to get in line. Plus they probably realize the profit margins will be much higher on green than they ever were on oil (and Congress won't try to steal those profits for at least a few more years)
 
#10
#10
utvolpj said:
you can only demonize someone for so long before they get the hint and try to get in line. Plus they probably realize the profit margins will be much higher on green than they ever were on oil (and Congress won't try to steal those profits for at least a few more years)
Click to expand...

there's a reason they call themselves "energy companies"

there's a reason BPs slogan for years has been Beyond Petroleum

they are doing what any forward thinking company does, preparing for the future and focusing on the markets they serve rather than the products they sell.
 
#11
#11
How did this get by the conflict of interest lawyers? A professor here who a good friend of mine works with just because a program manager at ARPA-E. He was haggled to death over research associations and companies he has consulted for being conflicts of interest.

Unless I am missing something, overseeing the creation of green jobs would mean funneling money into these companies so they can expand. How can you own large stakes of green companies and be in that position? Do you think that they've agreed that those companies won't take money directly, but the concern is that they will be directly contracted by those who do get money....or did the conflict of interest guys just completely drop the ball?
 
#12
#12
Team Obama doesn't exactly have a stellar vetting record.

The question is will any of this info be made public via traditional media. This is more direct than the Cheney/Haliburton connection and that was a huge deal.
 
#13
#13
volinbham said:
Team Obama doesn't exactly have a stellar vetting record.

The question is will any of this info be made public via traditional media. This is more direct than the Cheney/Haliburton connection and that was a huge deal.
Click to expand...

It will likely depend on whether or not these companies get direct government money and what the size of the contracts are.

The crazy thing is that it might be completely fair for these companies to get that money. If they are among the 3 best companies at doing what they do, and 3 companies get similar funding, then things are likely above-board. However, you can't undo the appearance of impropriety there.
 
#14
#14
volinbham said:
there's a reason they call themselves "energy companies"

there's a reason BPs slogan for years has been Beyond Petroleum

they are doing what any forward thinking company does, preparing for the future and focusing on the markets they serve rather than the products they sell.
Click to expand...

I get that and actually applaud their efforts. I just think that green energy = good is a misnomer. All it means to these companies is they won't be scrutinized as much as they were with oil since they can stick a flower on the package
 
#15
#15
TennTradition said:
It will likely depend on whether or not these companies get direct government money and what the size of the contracts are.

The crazy thing is that it might be completely fair for these companies to get that money. If they are among the 3 best companies at doing what they do, and 3 companies get similar funding, then things are likely above-board. However, you can't undo the appearance of impropriety there.
Click to expand...

Same as the Halliburton deal - they were the best company for the job but the perception was cronyism.

I've never understood how supporters of one party can think so ill of politicians from the opposing party (their motives and intentions in particular) yet view their own as virtuous.

There are policy differences to be sure but people are people. It seems completely irrational to me to think Dem leaders are evil, nefarious, etc. but somehow Rep leaders are free from those vices and are simply trying to do what is right (and vice versa).

This case is a perfect example.
 
#16
#16
utvolpj said:
I get that and actually applaud their efforts. I just think that green energy = good is a misnomer. All it means to these companies is they won't be scrutinized as much as they were with oil since they can stick a flower on the package
Click to expand...

Agreed. There is plenty of "green energy" initiatives that are net disasters for the environment. Such as many of the current ethanol projects. If you are using food to make gas, you're doing it wrong.
 
#17
#17
IPorange said:
Agreed. There is plenty of "green energy" initiatives that are net disasters for the environment. Such as many of the current ethanol projects. If you are using food to make gas, you're doing it wrong.
Click to expand...

Agree. This is where state and fed politics diverge. Grassley is likely a pro-drill guy at the Fed level but his home state gets gobs of cash for going "green" with ethanol.
 
#18
#18
IPorange said:
Agreed. There is plenty of "green energy" initiatives that are net disasters for the environment. Such as many of the current ethanol projects. If you are using food to make gas, you're doing it wrong.
Click to expand...

ethanol was a straight payout to the farmers. nothing more, nothing less.
 
#21
#21
IPorange said:
I wonder why tidal generators haven't really caught on?
Click to expand...

it's the saltwater apparently, but you are correct the most obvious untapped source of energy is the ocean. i'm not sure why more money hasn't been spent on it. it could literally solve all our energy problems.
 
#22
#22
droski said:
it's the saltwater apparently, but you are correct the most obvious untapped source of energy is the ocean. i'm not sure why more money hasn't been spent on it. it could literally solve all our energy problems.
Click to expand...

it's probably more a case of the NIMBY crowd than a natural obstacle that can be overcome
 
#23
#23
not sure i buy that. there are plenty of countries that would do this if the technology was available. china doesnt' give a crap about pissing off the environmentalists.
 
#24
#24
Or at least put a major dent in them.


I remember hearing about an idea for some sort of tower structure that could be built, that would rise from the sea floor up to the surface in 200 or 300 ft depth areas, and would work by circulating a low boiling point liquid from the bottom (which would be cooled by the depths of the sea) up to the top that was above the surface (which would be hot during the day), and generate electricity by the thermal circulations. Other than reading about the concept once (like when I was kid 15 years ago) I haven't heard anything else since.
 
#25
#25
why couldnt' the waves coming in and out rotate a turbine and create energy? seems simple. i'm no engineer though so i'm sure there are good reasons.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top