I just have to ask... am I the only one that hears about this and can't help but link the incident side-by-side with the tough talk on global warming recently from the President and Secretary of State?
Taking an hour-long flight at low altitudes to get a nice photo-op with the statue of liberty is nice, but how many gallons of jet fuel were burned by the F16 and Boeing airliner to take a couple pretty pictures?
If the catch-phrase is "Green your Routine," then this hardly qualifies. It's not like it was a pressing use of fuel, not a high-level diplomatic function. It was something that could have been done with Photoshop. As genuine as a real picture? No. But that's the selling point - instead of burning incredible amounts of fuel, we sat at a computer and created a graphic.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Monday, April 20, 2009
EPA Labels CO2 as Pollutant
I just want to know when they will do the same concerning water vapor, a vastly more important part of global warming. I once raised this issue in a newspaper discussion forum about the idea of Hydrogen fuel and was treated as a moron "that just turns into clouds!"
But seriously - if emission of CO2 is as dangerous to human life as the EPA suggests, for the reasons it describes, shouldn't something with about 100x the potency at causing global warming be treated accordingly?
But seriously - if emission of CO2 is as dangerous to human life as the EPA suggests, for the reasons it describes, shouldn't something with about 100x the potency at causing global warming be treated accordingly?
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
House of Sand?
From the President's latest address on the economy:
"We cannot rebuild this economy on the same pile of sand. We must build our house upon a rock."
I would really like to know what, in his view, is the pile of sand and what is the rock with which he'd like to replace it. I view a statement like this as making the economic situation out to be FAR worse than it actually is - and if you want to tear down the (to be very loose) 80% of the economy that is working well to create a new foundation in your image... I really, really want to know what exactly you intend to do, and why you're utterly certain it will work.
Vague language when you talk about building the economy is, for me, downright frightening. Up until now, I was thinking that even with the majorities he has in Congress, the President's agenda would be hampered by fears of over-reaching. But talk like this - talking about re-creating the economy - that's borderline lunacy.
"We cannot rebuild this economy on the same pile of sand. We must build our house upon a rock."
I would really like to know what, in his view, is the pile of sand and what is the rock with which he'd like to replace it. I view a statement like this as making the economic situation out to be FAR worse than it actually is - and if you want to tear down the (to be very loose) 80% of the economy that is working well to create a new foundation in your image... I really, really want to know what exactly you intend to do, and why you're utterly certain it will work.
Vague language when you talk about building the economy is, for me, downright frightening. Up until now, I was thinking that even with the majorities he has in Congress, the President's agenda would be hampered by fears of over-reaching. But talk like this - talking about re-creating the economy - that's borderline lunacy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)