response 79 of 107:

Feb 7 07:15 UTC 2006

The National Review published another blistering review of Bush's 
speech, where they accused him of going green and becoming another Al 
Gore. 

response 81 of 107:

Feb 7 11:42 UTC 2006

So, Curl.  Have you picked out the cave you plan to move to?

response 83 of 107:

Feb 7 13:46 UTC 2006

re resp:78: The president should have reversed the basis of modern 
Western civilization by giving a different speech?  Wow, that guy is 
not just a fan of the president, he thinks George W. Bush is a god or 
something.  We've used oil for a hundred years, more and more and more, 
and people in America and other places seem to like it that way.  I 
don't think any president has the kind of leadership influence needed 
to make people give all of that up.  I don't think anyone who tried 
would be able to stay in office.  No one who is so inclined would be 
able to get into office in the first place.

I tend to agree with the president that alternatives to oil need to be 
developed or we *are* eventually going to decline into a non-
technological abyss.  Most of the people in the world can't and won't 
survive if we run out of oil and there's no alternative to keep the 
technology going.  It's not a matter of choosing to go back to the 
technology of 1300 A.D., with almost everyone in Europe living by 
farming their fiefdom with ox-drawn plows, and most of the few hundred 
thousand people in America hunting in boundless forests.  We use 
technology now or almost all of us die, horribly, of disease and 
starvation.

response 85 of 107:

Feb 7 17:08 UTC 2006

re #84
Lightrail runs electric in most places.
 
What ticked me off was that GW mentioned dependence on oil and then spun it
into alternative home heating instead of coal.  What he should have been
focusing on was initiatives for better mass transit in urban areas.

response 87 of 107:

Feb 7 17:17 UTC 2006

re #86
What makes you think there is any distance between the Administration and the
businesses that control the "market"?
You know what the White House's response is to investing in our energy
infrastructure?  By expanding refining capacity
They've flat out rejected the most sane idea I've heard thus far which was
presented by Senator Grassley: Major oil corporations voluntarily hand over
10 percent of their vast windfall profits towards saner energy investments
for America.
It won't happen.  Why? Major appointees of this Administration are former
major oil executives

response 89 of 107:

Feb 7 17:40 UTC 2006

When we elect one.

response 91 of 107:

Feb 7 17:51 UTC 2006

I would like to see a requirement that all new housing be within 1/2 mile of
public transportation, rather than a requirement for parking.  And that all
businesses be within a 5 minute walk of public transportation, and have
sidewalks (unlike many on Washtenaw Ave, which are linked by mud paths, which
also link the bus stops).  I would also like to see people who own cars use
them less, including Rane.  And stop using power mowers and power clothes
dryers, and stop cooking in air conditioned kitchens, and other obvious energy
wasters.

response 93 of 107:

Feb 7 17:52 UTC 2006

I think the threat of oil shortages being used as a weapon against the US
economy should be enough of a requirement for such a project.

response 95 of 107:

Feb 7 17:58 UTC 2006

 re #92:  Fusion power (or any other sort of cheap alternative power) doesn't
 create more oil, true, but it could substantially reduce the consumption of
 remaining oil, giving us a longer transition time.  And working now to find
 an eventual oil alternative isn't in any way incompatible with also working
 to reduce current oil consumption.

response 97 of 107:

Feb 7 18:06 UTC 2006

The war on nouns is always a blank check.  Just look at the war on terror.
Instead of a war on OPEC or war on Saudi Arabia, its a war on terror.
GW's solution is to expand refineries and drill more.
This country needs to kick the Big 3's ass to the curb and take their bus and
train technologies back which were dismantled by the Big 3 during Operation
Suburbia of the 50's and 60's.

response 99 of 107:

Feb 7 18:09 UTC 2006

A White House document shows that executives from big oil companies met with
Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001 -- something long suspected
by environmentalists but denied as recently as last week by industry officials
testifying before Congress.

The document, obtained this week by The Washington Post, shows that officials
from Exxon Mobil Corp., Conoco (before its merger with Phillips), Shell Oil
Co. and BP America Inc. met in the White House complex with the Cheney aides
who were developing a national energy policy, parts of which became law and
parts of which are still being debated.

In a joint hearing last week of the Senate Energy and Commerce committees,
the chief executives of Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips
said their firms did not participate in the 2001 task force. The president
of Shell Oil said his company did not participate "to my knowledge," and the
chief of BP America Inc. said he did not know.

Chevron was not named in the White House document, but the Government
Accountability Office has found that Chevron was one of several companies that
"gave detailed energy policy recommendations" to the task force. In addition,
Cheney had a separate meeting with John Browne, BP's chief executive,
according to a person familiar with the task force's work; that meeting is
not noted in the document.

The task force's activities attracted complaints from environmentalists, who
said they were shut out of the task force discussions while corporate
interests were present. The meetings were held in secret and the White House
refused to release a list of participants. The task force was made up
primarily of Cabinet-level officials. Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club
unsuccessfully sued to obtain the records.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who posed the question about the task force,
said he will ask the Justice Department today to investigate. "The White House
went to great lengths to keep these meetings secret, and now oil executives
may be lying to Congress about their role in the Cheney task force,"
Lautenberg said.

Lea Anne McBride, a spokeswoman for Cheney, declined to comment on the
document. She said that the courts have upheld "the constitutional right of
the president and vice president to obtain information in confidentiality."

The executives were not under oath when they testified, so they are not
vulnerable to charges of perjury; committee Democrats had protested the
decision by Commerce Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) not to swear in the
executives. But a person can be fined or imprisoned for up to five years for
making "any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or
representation" to Congress.

Alan Huffman, who was a Conoco manager until the 2002 merger with Phillips,
confirmed meeting with the task force staff. "We met in the Executive Office
Building, if I remember correctly," he said.

A spokesman for ConocoPhillips said the chief executive, James J. Mulva, had
been unaware that Conoco officials met with task force staff when he testified
at the hearing. The spokesman said that Mulva was chief executive of Phillips
in 2001 before the merger and that nobody from Phillips met with the task
force.

Exxon spokesman Russ Roberts said the company stood by chief executive Lee
R. Raymond's statement in the hearing. In a brief phone interview, former
Exxon vice president James Rouse, the official named in the White House
document, denied the meeting took place. "That must be inaccurate and I don't
have any comment beyond that," said Rouse, now retired.

Ronnie Chappell, a spokesman for BP, declined to comment on the task force
meetings. Darci Sinclair, a spokeswoman for Shell, said she did not know
whether Shell officials met with the task force, but they often meet members
of the administration. Chevron said its executives did not meet with the task
force but confirmed that it sent President Bush recommendations in a letter.

The person familiar with the task force's work, who requested anonymity out
of concern about retribution, said the document was based on records kept by
the Secret Service of people admitted to the White House complex. This person
said most meetings were with Andrew Lundquist, the task force's executive
director, and Cheney aide Karen Y. Knutson.

According to the White House document, Rouse met with task force staff members
on Feb. 14, 2001. On March 21, they met with Archie Dunham, who was chairman
of Conoco. On April 12, according to the document, task force staff members
met with Conoco official Huffman and two officials from the U.S. Oil and Gas
Association, Wayne Gibbens and Alby Modiano.

On April 17, task force staff members met with Royal Dutch/Shell Group's
chairman, Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, Shell Oil chairman Steven Miller and two
others. On March 22, staff members met with BP regional president Bob Malone,
chief economist Peter Davies and company employees Graham Barr and Deb
Beaubien.

Toward the end of the hearing, Lautenberg asked the five executives: "Did your
company or any representatives of your companies participate in Vice President
Cheney's energy task force in 2001?" When there was no response, Lautenberg
added: "The meeting . . . "

"No," said Raymond.

"No," said Chevron Chairman David J. O'Reilly.

"We did not, no," Mulva said.

"To be honest, I don't know," said BP America chief executive Ross Pillari,
who came to the job in August 2001. "I wasn't here then."

"But your company was here," Lautenberg replied.

"Yes," Pillari said.

Shell Oil president John Hofmeister, who has held his job since earlier this
year, answered last. "Not to my knowledge," he said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR200511150
184
2.html

response 101 of 107:

Feb 7 19:01 UTC 2006

Is there a cure for Lou Gehrigs?

response 103 of 107:

Feb 7 19:09 UTC 2006

We pretty much won the war on smallpox.  But most things have a way of
biting back.