Comments on: Obama Talks up Clean Energy, While Republican Response Nettles Scientists

By: Daniel J. Andrew

Daniel J. Andrew — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 17:17:26 +0000

Brian.

Perhaps you’d like to provide us with a link showing how many geologists support Obama? Since you think they’re overpaid, perhaps you could show us how much that is then. Be sure to compare them to other professions taking into account amount of training, schooling etc needed. Also show which union they belong to (thought I’d lob you an easy one so you don’t get discouraged). Demonstrate too that it doesn’t create jobs–obviously you know exactly how the money will be spent so this is another easy one. Perhaps you can demonstrate that patching up potholes and building bridges will actually create jobs…or are the majority of jobs for people who are already working in the construction industry–That “doesn’t CREATE a job, it just employees a bunch of overpriced union Bush supporters for the life of that particular project”.

You might have been more credible if you’d not thrown in the “overpriced union Obama supporters” clause. As it is, you’ve let a political cloud your judgement (your main point could still be right, mind you, but with your bias and lack of supporting evidence you’re not exactly a reliable opinion).

Perhaps you’re just a bit upset at Obama because he’s gone and thwarted your desire to own a pet monkey.

By: blake

blake — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:03:35 +0000

I guess “stimulative” means anything that spends money on anything.

If we are serious about alternative energy, we have to make the anti-nukes people realize that nuclear energy simply has to be a major part of that. Wind, solar, geothermal, and hydroelectric just aren’t economical in enough places.

Why does this article quote Mother Jones totally misunderstanding both a stimulus package and what Jindal’s complaint was? Wasn’t there someone a little more serious that could be quoted?

By: Brian Mangravite

Brian Mangravite — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 22:11:50 +0000

Thought about it, zach. We were discussing volcano monitoring, remember? Not large scale construction projects. But while we’re at it, no they don’t stimulate the economy. They provide jobs for the duration of the project then they go bye-bye. Stimulating the economy is done by encouraging new business, for example. Something that provides a job BEYOND the spending of the bill. 140 million to put a handful of geologists in a job will not stimulate the economy. Large scale construction, again, while possibly a necessary thing, might temporarily stimulate the economy. But it doesn’t CREATE a job, it just employs a bunch of overpriced union Obama supporters for the life of that particular project. Then it goes away. That doesn’t stimulate the economy.

By: zach

zach — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:57:35 +0000

You don’t get how adding a number of high-paying jobs, large-scale construction projects, and developing new technologies stimulates the economy? You might want to sit and think about it for a few seconds then.

By: Brian Mangravite

Brian Mangravite — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:29:00 +0000

Hello? This is supposed to be a STIMULUS PACKAGE. Jindal’s right to criticize “volcano monitoring”. As worthwhile an effort as it may be it doesn’t belong in a bill that is supposed to be stimulating the economy. And, no, I don’t buy that employing some geologists stimulates the economy. Oh, and by the way, Aaron, John McCain was calling for a complete gamut of alternative energy sources. While Obama is on tape saying he’d drive coal out of business. You’ll never get off foreign sources if you drive domestic sources out of business.

By: aaron wenger

aaron wenger — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 16:58:44 +0000

Finally!!! A president who just may be able to understand science and technology’s possible impact upon world politics. Now if we can just get all the techies to mesh their efforts–not just nukes, not just wind, not just hydrogen, etc, etc and see instead that what we need is an energy backbone with many ribs. If we build about 50, 000 Mw of backbone electrical generation coupled to an expanding network of wind, solar, intelligent designed grids, we will be able to move 75% of our heating/AC and transportation energy usage off of any fossil fuel. In doing so we will change the world much more than can be done by any army.

I come from a long line of republican voters. The republican lack of imagination/knowledge seems to be increasing over time. I don’t think that I would vote republican again–even for dog catcher!

By: Abraham

Abraham — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 21:51:02 +0000

There could be no better investment in America than to invest in America becoming energy independent! We need to utilize everything in out power to reduce our dependence on foreign oil including using our own natural resources. Create cheap clean energy, new badly needed green jobs, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. The high cost of fuel this past year seriously damaged our economy and society. The cost of fuel effects every facet of consumer goods from production to shipping costs. After a brief reprieve gas is inching back up. OPEC will continue to cut production until they achieve their desired 80-100. per barrel. If all gasoline cars, trucks, and SUV’s instead had plug-in electric drive trains, the amount of electricity needed to replace gasoline is about equal to the estimated wind energy potential of the state of North Dakota. There is a really good new book out by Jeff Wilson called The Manhattan Project of 2009 Energy Independence Now. http://www.themanhattanprojectof2009.com No one single factor affects our economy more or trickles down further than the high cost of fuel. This past year the high cost of fuel did serious damage to our economy and society. We shouldn’t allow other countries to have that much control over our economy. We need to become a nation that is totally energy independent.